While my emotions regarding the issue may cause me to use more heated language than I usually do, that doesn’t mean that the underlying facts about the way the church has handled abuse are untrue.
You may have a wide and deep experience of your diocese. That does not qualify you to speak as if you have knowledge of all dioceses.
So I know first hand about how the church handles abuse issues, how does that disqualify me from accurately commenting on how they handle the abuse issue? Am I too close to the issue to talk about it?
It would seem to me that either you are too close to the issue, or in the alternative, that you do not engage deeply in critical thinking.
I have tried to make a point (actually, several) and I don’t seem to be getting through. I think that there are some bishops who should be “swung on a short rope”. I agree with you that the abuse has been horrible for the victims and for the Church. Where we part company is where you seem to want to paint all bishops, and the Church, with one broad brush.
We have had clericalism - up the wazoo - and clericalism is to an extent part of the source of how we got to where we are. And while clericalism too often arises from the clerics, there are a whole lot of Catholics, particularly “old school” raised three or four generations ago, who bought into that clericalism lock, stock and barrel and were at least somewhat complicit in how the bishops continued in that clericalism.
You also do not seem to be able to acknowledge that 40, 50 and more years ago, no one really had any clue as to how psychologically damaging sex abuse can be to the victim. It simply was seen as sinful activity, one that could cause scandal in the Church and so the bishops, not aware of the damage issue, mishandled the priests who were abusing. Add to that the fact that such a huge number of victims did not come forward, and we had bishops totally unaware of how big the problem was.
You seem to be unable to see anything but what you want to see. I have never, and never would, say that the issue was “no big deal”. It was of astounding and horrendous proportions. But I am unwilling to say that “all” bishops, or “the Church” did such and such, or failed to do such and such. Some did, some didn’t, and too often people simply don’t care about the facts. Too often people are not willing to do the hard work to sort out who was really responsible, why they were really responsible, and to what extent. As I have said repeatedly; complex issues do not lend themselves to simple answers. Nor do they lend themselves to honest treatment when emotions cloud judgment.
As to taking parting shots, I shared with you my motivation for the way I feel, I tried to guess at yours by reading between the lines and how you parsed your language, and I was wrong ,so what is your relationship to the church and its’ abuse crisis? Maybe it will give me some insight into why you feel the way you do.
Peace
why do I “feel” the way I do? I try to set feelings aside. Feelings cloud any judgment of factual issues. We expect perfection from imperfect people. We grow up expecting that our parents, for example, are all knowing, all wise, all merciful; and instead somewhere along the line we find they are humans prone to mistakes, prejudices, faults, even sins. So also, priests and bishops.
I would like to see justice done. But how is justice defined? One of the posters wants an automatic removal of a bishop if a priest is found to have abused someone. I can’t think of a term I could use to describe that comment that either would not be censored or possibly get me banned. That comment in itself is not worthy of a response; I respond because I don’t want someone else to think in that direction. There is absolutely no aspect of justice in that comment; in fact it is so unjust as to defy any sort of a civil reply.
People hear mostly about this from the public press, and while the press has forced the issue to the point that even the most recalcitrant, clericalist bishop cannot ignore it, the press has had its own agenda and fairness has nothing to do whatsoever with most of the reporting. And so people form their opinions from a press that is doing all it can to form that opinion, never mind the facts.
People do not want to understand how a bishop could let this go the way it has gone. Most of that not wanting to understand is driven by the revulsion to the abuse. But the reality is we need to understand how good men, trying to do God’s work, trying to make the right decision, can have made such a mess of it; justice demands that we examine that reality, that we do the necessary work.
It is far, far easier to condemn, to sweep all together, to ignore or dismiss facts and take a “shoot them all and let God sort them out” approach. That is not justice.
There is an old phrase that in essence says to not judge a person until you have walked a mile in his moccasins. No one seems to want to put the moccasins on; the couch is far too comfortable, from which imperious opinions issue.
I love the Church. Christ never said its leaders would be endowed with impeccability. Throughout history we have had priests, bishops, cardinals and popes who have failed us, often with huge repercussions, and this is no different. That is the reality, and so few want to look at that reality as they (seem to) feel that if they did, they would lose faith, they would lose hope, and would end up denying what is good, right, and salvific about the Church. Christ promised the Holy Spirit and I firmly believe the Holy Spirit is still active and guiding the Church. But Christ did not grant impeccability, nor even necessarily wisdom. We need to understand the difference.
What I can’t seem to get across is we agree in some aspects more than you seem to understand.
