K
KJW5551
Guest
Insofar as I am trying defending the Church through reason and facts, yes it is apologetics.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
TMC
Guest
Yeah, because that is working really well right now. Secularization is not the problem, clericalism, combined with a lack of transparency (and enabled by vast sums of wealth) is the problem.Kind of like secular government, right? We could form mini UNs at every Parish? We see how incorruptible World Governments are, right?
I do not see how you jump to abuses to revolutionizing the hierarchy. An underling current of Church struggles is the secularization of the Church. We should not progressively make decisions for the sake of progress.
The solution is simple: go back to the basics, the 10 Commandments, and the Words of Our Savior. Everything else should not be tolerated.
The Church is not its leadership. It is made up of the members of the Church - the laity, the Body of Christ. As long as the Church has no transparency, and no real oversight from its members, these problems will persist. We now know that the Church has struggled with these issues for centuries. And we know that the Church was even worse for large stretches of history. After a thousand or so years of failing self-oversight, its time to admit that is not working. I think the only possible solution is to give real authority to the laity.
You seem to say the answer is to just ask the leadership to be more holy. How will that work? Why do you think that will work now, when it has failed to this point?
O
otjm
Guest
You are young, and given that I am somewhere between 2 and 3 times as old as you are, I am going to suggest a couple of things.
You need to learn a whole lot about polls and surveys, including hidden and unintended bias, as well as the legitimacy or lack thereof for sample sizing and how it was decided. With the exception of polls by CARA, I have a tendency to take them with a couple of grains of salt; not that there is no truth in them, but that they can so easily be wrong unintentionally, let alone intentionally.
You express that you have met a number of priests and you did not detect what you indicate as homosexual mannerisms. I would suggest that you first are trying to determine a person’s sexual orientation by mannerism, which vary in any given population, whether that is straight, bi-sexual, or homosexual. That is a fools errand; it relies on two things; one, the observer’s acuity, and two, the presumption that “telltales” are consistent. Neither of these are a given, nor do you indicate that you have a wide experience of self-identified homosexuals from which to create a base knowledge of those telltales.
Add to that the fact that any diocese is impacted by its population and there is a risk of skew; I do not suggest that any diocese which has major cities in it will have a high population of homosexual priests, but I would not be astounded or amazed, given the high population of openly acknowledged homosexuals in major cities to find that they did, as opposed to a smaller diocese which has no significantly large population centers. In short, I don’t know where you live, but your personal impressions are not an adequate polling of the number of homosexual priests in your diocese.
I am not unaware of homosexuals in the priesthood; I have lost one pastor to death of AIDS, three who have been accused of sexual abuse of children, and for a very short time, rode to Catholic high school with a priest who was the first one to be convicted and imprisoned for sexual abuse of children. I also have known 4 others accused of sexual abuse. And that is just priests I have come in contact with either through education or parishes I have been in, all of which are in a diocese with about 200 priests.
I have no question that the number of priests who have abused children are a small subset of all priests, and a small subset of all priests who are homosexual. What neither I nor much of anyone knows is how many priests - homosexual or heterosexual - have had sexual relations with adults. and how that plays out in the issue of sexual identity is basically impossible to determine as there really is no mechanism of “outing” as there is whit child abuse. Doe it matter?
I certainly think so, but there is nothing I can do about it.
You need to learn a whole lot about polls and surveys, including hidden and unintended bias, as well as the legitimacy or lack thereof for sample sizing and how it was decided. With the exception of polls by CARA, I have a tendency to take them with a couple of grains of salt; not that there is no truth in them, but that they can so easily be wrong unintentionally, let alone intentionally.
You express that you have met a number of priests and you did not detect what you indicate as homosexual mannerisms. I would suggest that you first are trying to determine a person’s sexual orientation by mannerism, which vary in any given population, whether that is straight, bi-sexual, or homosexual. That is a fools errand; it relies on two things; one, the observer’s acuity, and two, the presumption that “telltales” are consistent. Neither of these are a given, nor do you indicate that you have a wide experience of self-identified homosexuals from which to create a base knowledge of those telltales.
Add to that the fact that any diocese is impacted by its population and there is a risk of skew; I do not suggest that any diocese which has major cities in it will have a high population of homosexual priests, but I would not be astounded or amazed, given the high population of openly acknowledged homosexuals in major cities to find that they did, as opposed to a smaller diocese which has no significantly large population centers. In short, I don’t know where you live, but your personal impressions are not an adequate polling of the number of homosexual priests in your diocese.
I am not unaware of homosexuals in the priesthood; I have lost one pastor to death of AIDS, three who have been accused of sexual abuse of children, and for a very short time, rode to Catholic high school with a priest who was the first one to be convicted and imprisoned for sexual abuse of children. I also have known 4 others accused of sexual abuse. And that is just priests I have come in contact with either through education or parishes I have been in, all of which are in a diocese with about 200 priests.
I have no question that the number of priests who have abused children are a small subset of all priests, and a small subset of all priests who are homosexual. What neither I nor much of anyone knows is how many priests - homosexual or heterosexual - have had sexual relations with adults. and how that plays out in the issue of sexual identity is basically impossible to determine as there really is no mechanism of “outing” as there is whit child abuse. Doe it matter?
I certainly think so, but there is nothing I can do about it.
O
otjm
Guest
While I do not think that ordaining married men is a non-starter, the Church - both in the Roman rite and in the Eastern rites has a 2,000 year history of not advancing married men to the episcopacy. I seriously doubt that is going to start soon - or ever.
While I am no fan of Crisis magazine, they had an interesting article naming names (McCarrick, et alia) who were running directly against the rule which Pope Benedict enacted, against ordaining men with strong SSA. How can the subtle and not so subtle individuals in the hierarchy with SSA be aligned with that law? ’
Anyone who thinks there is going to be some wholesale “outing”, and a subsequent “cleaning house” is either naive in the extreme, or so politicized over the issue that any logical conversation on the matter is useless and pointless.
And as far as a laity rule of the Church, that simply is not going to happen. Christ gave the leadership of the Church to the Apostles, and it has been handed down thus ever since. that is not to say that the laity cannot have more (name removed by moderator)ut in terms of advice; history has examples of some saints who took on the powers that be. But there certainly is room for more transparency. One would hope that it would come with a neutral, fact-finding approach and not one of bias.
Having listened to comments from people in Rome at the start of the conference, I do not have much hope for a civil conversation on the matters. For example, one individual representing SNAP appeared to demand a “one law fits all” approach, with the corollary that the Pope could simply unilaterally revise Canon law in what appeared to be a Red Queen “off with their heads” approach.
A woman (who was identified in the interview) indicated she had credible evidence of at least 10 other bishops who may have charges similar to some which were made of McCarrick. Whether there is truth in it or not, it would take someone outside the institutional Church to clarify and bring focus on the matters, something I would estimate has close to zero chance. There simply is no mechanism for determining adult consensual behavior without (generally) an outside witness, and that is at best haphazard.
Even the issue of laity control of finances is not going to fly; there is history in the US of how poorly that went (see, for example, parishioner control over parishes).
The short of it is, we have a lot of angry people (justifiably so) proposing any number of changes. And even casual observation shows that the more the anger goes up, the faster rationality and logic goes down.
Do we need changes? Absolutely. will they come soon? Not likely, Is clericalism at the root of a lot of it? I have no question that it is. JP2 and B16 both tried, and failed, to root out clericalism in the dicasteries, and Francis doesn’t seem more equipped than they. Does Canon Law need some fine tuning? No doubt, but many who rail against it know neither the law in specific, nor the overall thrust of it. They simply want heads to roll, with which I sympathize - but unless you look good in blue, don’t hold your breath.
While I am no fan of Crisis magazine, they had an interesting article naming names (McCarrick, et alia) who were running directly against the rule which Pope Benedict enacted, against ordaining men with strong SSA. How can the subtle and not so subtle individuals in the hierarchy with SSA be aligned with that law? ’
Anyone who thinks there is going to be some wholesale “outing”, and a subsequent “cleaning house” is either naive in the extreme, or so politicized over the issue that any logical conversation on the matter is useless and pointless.
And as far as a laity rule of the Church, that simply is not going to happen. Christ gave the leadership of the Church to the Apostles, and it has been handed down thus ever since. that is not to say that the laity cannot have more (name removed by moderator)ut in terms of advice; history has examples of some saints who took on the powers that be. But there certainly is room for more transparency. One would hope that it would come with a neutral, fact-finding approach and not one of bias.
Having listened to comments from people in Rome at the start of the conference, I do not have much hope for a civil conversation on the matters. For example, one individual representing SNAP appeared to demand a “one law fits all” approach, with the corollary that the Pope could simply unilaterally revise Canon law in what appeared to be a Red Queen “off with their heads” approach.
A woman (who was identified in the interview) indicated she had credible evidence of at least 10 other bishops who may have charges similar to some which were made of McCarrick. Whether there is truth in it or not, it would take someone outside the institutional Church to clarify and bring focus on the matters, something I would estimate has close to zero chance. There simply is no mechanism for determining adult consensual behavior without (generally) an outside witness, and that is at best haphazard.
Even the issue of laity control of finances is not going to fly; there is history in the US of how poorly that went (see, for example, parishioner control over parishes).
The short of it is, we have a lot of angry people (justifiably so) proposing any number of changes. And even casual observation shows that the more the anger goes up, the faster rationality and logic goes down.
Do we need changes? Absolutely. will they come soon? Not likely, Is clericalism at the root of a lot of it? I have no question that it is. JP2 and B16 both tried, and failed, to root out clericalism in the dicasteries, and Francis doesn’t seem more equipped than they. Does Canon Law need some fine tuning? No doubt, but many who rail against it know neither the law in specific, nor the overall thrust of it. They simply want heads to roll, with which I sympathize - but unless you look good in blue, don’t hold your breath.
T
TMC
Guest
I understand your viewpoint, and appreciate the thoughtful response. I would simply say that I disagree on giving authority to the laity. The Church can be administered by the successors of the Apostles, with the ordained leadership maintaining theological control. I do not read the words of Jesus from preventing control of the operation of the Church from being handed to the laity.
How else is clericalism to be rooted out, given the centuries-long roots? How is changing canon law going to help, do we think that the shocking and pernicious behavior coming to light was allowed under the current rules? A more aggressive change is required, in my view.
How else is clericalism to be rooted out, given the centuries-long roots? How is changing canon law going to help, do we think that the shocking and pernicious behavior coming to light was allowed under the current rules? A more aggressive change is required, in my view.
O
otjm
Guest
I don’t have the citations, but in the past there has been laity control over parishes, and it ended not well at all. There has to be a way between absolute control by the hierarchy of the finances of the Church and laity control.
And I don’t see the finances of the Church as being a way to root out clericalism, nor do I think clericalism will ever be totally wiped out; that would require that humans be something other than humans - or to put it another way, St. Paul said “all are sinners”.
Certainly there can be more laity involved in the process of decision making; not that they suddenly become clerics and make the decisions, but rather that laity are included in when decisions are being made.
Many people do not like political terms applied to Christians, but the reality is there are liberals, there are conservatives, and there are moderates. Put either end of the spectrum in charge and it will not go well.
And separate from finances, let’s get back to sexual “abuse”. That term covers a lot of territory, to include, for example, a priest having an affair with a woman in his parish or other Catholic organization of which he is a part. There are some who would call for his forced laicization. It is far likelier that the Church, applying Canon law, will treat the matter differently. any number of people may take great umbrage at that fact, but the Church treats consensual sexual sin as sin, and moves from there. Likewise, it is likely to treat a priest having consensual sex with another male as a sin (as opposed to a violation of Canon law subject to laicization); whether either scenario is with a parishioner or someone outside the parish is likely to have a result in what, if anything is brought to bear on the priest’s position as pastor. laity may see it not in a theological context, but in a civil and/or criminal context.
In either case/scenario, there needs to be transparency. But transparency does not equate, in these circumstances, with changes to Canon law - with any exception on the issue of transparency.
And as an aside, when Pennsylvania blew up there were individuals in the forums who were advocating cutting off financial support. I understand their anger. I get it. However, that flies in the face of the fact that we owe support to the victims, and hanging the diocese out to dry financially says, without realizing it “suck it up, buttercup” (that is the most politely way I can put the message) to those who were abused.
And yes, I am all too aware of the arguments about large financial judgments through the court system, but that is what we have within the US to attempt to rectify the horrible damage done by the abuser (1st) and the intransigence of the hierarchy (2nd, mostly in the past) to deal with the issue. I have no desire to argue about lawsuits, except to say that it was the size and volume which brought the bishops to focus; the matters had been going on seemingly forever, and it was not until dioceses started going bankrupt that the message was so loud even a deaf bishop could hear.
And I don’t see the finances of the Church as being a way to root out clericalism, nor do I think clericalism will ever be totally wiped out; that would require that humans be something other than humans - or to put it another way, St. Paul said “all are sinners”.
Certainly there can be more laity involved in the process of decision making; not that they suddenly become clerics and make the decisions, but rather that laity are included in when decisions are being made.
Many people do not like political terms applied to Christians, but the reality is there are liberals, there are conservatives, and there are moderates. Put either end of the spectrum in charge and it will not go well.
And separate from finances, let’s get back to sexual “abuse”. That term covers a lot of territory, to include, for example, a priest having an affair with a woman in his parish or other Catholic organization of which he is a part. There are some who would call for his forced laicization. It is far likelier that the Church, applying Canon law, will treat the matter differently. any number of people may take great umbrage at that fact, but the Church treats consensual sexual sin as sin, and moves from there. Likewise, it is likely to treat a priest having consensual sex with another male as a sin (as opposed to a violation of Canon law subject to laicization); whether either scenario is with a parishioner or someone outside the parish is likely to have a result in what, if anything is brought to bear on the priest’s position as pastor. laity may see it not in a theological context, but in a civil and/or criminal context.
In either case/scenario, there needs to be transparency. But transparency does not equate, in these circumstances, with changes to Canon law - with any exception on the issue of transparency.
And as an aside, when Pennsylvania blew up there were individuals in the forums who were advocating cutting off financial support. I understand their anger. I get it. However, that flies in the face of the fact that we owe support to the victims, and hanging the diocese out to dry financially says, without realizing it “suck it up, buttercup” (that is the most politely way I can put the message) to those who were abused.
And yes, I am all too aware of the arguments about large financial judgments through the court system, but that is what we have within the US to attempt to rectify the horrible damage done by the abuser (1st) and the intransigence of the hierarchy (2nd, mostly in the past) to deal with the issue. I have no desire to argue about lawsuits, except to say that it was the size and volume which brought the bishops to focus; the matters had been going on seemingly forever, and it was not until dioceses started going bankrupt that the message was so loud even a deaf bishop could hear.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
We may not be too far apart. I do think the finances are part of the problem. One of the ways that certain Church leaders were able to manage and keep these things secret was the fact that they had incredible amounts of cash available with little or no oversight. Maybe I am overfocusing on that side of it, but it is one concrete reform that seems obvious to me.I don’t have the citations, but in the past there has been laity control over parishes, and it ended not well at all. There has to be a way between absolute control by the hierarchy of the finances of the Church and laity control.
And I don’t see the finances of the Church as being a way to root out clericalism, nor do I think clericalism will ever be totally wiped out; that would require that humans be something other than humans - or to put it another way, St. Paul said “all are sinners”.
In any event, real reform is needed. It is simply not enough to say we should pray more, or hope for more moral leaders, or just blame all the homosexuals. I think it is now obvious that this is a long standing and serious problem, which will require long term and serious reform to address.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
In the US, many parishes have lay staff, lay Parish Pastoral Councils, lay Finance Councils.
T
TMC
Guest
Yes, but most of them have no power. Actually none of them really do. My wife was on a parish council at one of the parishes we have belonged to over the years. The priest allowed the council to have access to a lot of information, and asked their advice on most decisions. He was a good guy and an OK priest. It worked well, because he needed some help and the council was there to give it. Then we got a new priest, who said in no uncertain terms that he did not need or desire advice. He did not formally disband the council, but he ignored it - did not even go to the meetings, and did not involve the council in anything. Like all councils I am aware of, the council only has the power and visibility the priest or bishop gives it, and that priest wanted no part of lay involvement.In the US, many parishes have lay staff, lay Parish Pastoral Councils, lay Finance Councils
Not saying there is a direct or causal relationship, but about a year after we had moved we learned the new priest was involved in inappropriate relationships with some young (but legally adult) men. He ended up doing a little jail time related to that. Never learned if he remained a priest.
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
If you read their How It Works and Why Should You Trust Us? pages, it’s reviewed by a team of journalists and editors.Do you know who designed, controls and/or owns that browser extension?
They also are open about the standards that they use, who reviewed it, and how they judged each standard. So the information is there for you to double check. It may not be 100% accurate, but it is certainly a better standard that judging a site by its (perceived) conservative/liberal bias, which is why I brought it up, since that seems to be a theme in this thread.Is there any way to verify the accuracy/trustworthiness of that tool?
That said, it only judges sites, not individual articles. You still need to apply some critical reading skills. That said, I’d imagine anyone who already does this is already pretty good at guessing how good/bad a site is. It doesn’t exactly take a lot to realize that the LA Times is, in general, of much higher quality than Breitbart. (I guess the flip of that would be to replace LA Times with NR and Breitbart with Daily Kos.)
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It’s still pretty sketchy that they wanted to include it.actually, it was a priest quoted in the article.
J
JulianN
Guest
It was kind of the point of the story. My point is that libel (and slander) are words that mean something. People being offended doesn’t make an article rise to the level of libel.
L
Larry1700
Guest
Laudable goal, but I’m not yet convinced. It begs questions, such as:
- Who will choose the journalists, and by what criteria will they be chosen?
- What are the biases, backgrounds and credentials of those journalists?
- What are the backgrounds and biases of the owner and managers of the company?
O
otjm
Guest
Clear oversight by the laity should resolve “hidden money” problems, without giving authority to the laity. As to clericalism, I don’t think that leaving theology to the priests, bishops, etc. will cure anything. There was a recent allegation, I believe against the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, that they received one or more letters from individuals alleging abuse, and did not even respond to them; if so, Voltaire was right: the problem with common sense is that it is not all that common. The issue supposedly was that they were not responsible (i,e, wrong dicastery) for such matters.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
It seems that in today’s world, only someone just like you is able to understand you.Gay people face many challenges in life that straight people don’t.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
I agree, I prefer to curate my own news and information. Far better that we understand rational thinking and how to find primary sources.
J
JMMJ
Guest
I wouldn’t say that. It takes a little more effort than in days gone by, one could certainly argue, to understand the people they share the world with today. I believe it is because we live in a time where there is less inhibition or willingness to hide oneself away just because others may disapprove because they aren’t willing to understand or have empathy. I think it is a good thing.It seems that in today’s world, only someone just like you is able to understand you.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.