Vatican’s McCarrick report says Pope John Paul II knew of misconduct allegations nearly two decades before cardinal’s removal

[stpurl]

But you see, you DO seem to be implying that the Church’s sex abuse problem is ‘different from’ sex abuse anywhere else and that the problem is directly related to both the ‘institution’ (i.e. clericalism and ‘coverups’ and to ‘celibacy’, i.e., ‘no marriage leads to abuse).

If that is NOT what you are saying, then please clarify and tell me why all the mentions are made of why we need to ‘get rid of celibacy’ or how it’s all about being comfortable with sexuality and why there is talk of ‘clericalism’ if you are NOT stating that these are the causes or are instrumental in the “Church’s abuse problem’.

As another poster noted, there is abuse in the military as well which is another ‘closed’ institution. Yet, when women were admitted into combat training, the incidences of sexual abuse did not ‘go down’ to any extent.

Why? Because the incidences of sexual abuse which is not only out there, but is condoned and even celebrated, has gone through the roof in the last 60 years. It is a societal crisis. The society which extols sex sex sex, has led to an unprecedented number. Of out of wedlock births with a particularly detrimental effect on Black people, an unprecedented rise of porn with concomitant objectification of people, particularly women and children, an ‘instant gratification’ culture, a separation of procreation from the act leading to unbelievable slaughter of innocents in the womb, ‘entertainment’ featuring rampant sexual actions, gestures, ‘focus’ across the board.

The Church’s crisis is part of the world’s crisis and both need to be addressed.

 

[RobertAdams]

The English Proto-Protestant group, The Lollards followed John Wycliffe (1395).

Weren’t they a proto-meme and pwning group?

 

[TMC]

But you see, you DO seem to be implying that the Church’s sex abuse problem is ‘different from’ sex abuse anywhere else and that the problem is directly related to both the ‘institution’ (i.e. clericalism and ‘coverups’ and to ‘celibacy’, i.e., ‘no marriage leads to abuse).

I AM saying that clerical sex abuse in the Church is different than ordinary crime in broader society. I am NOT saying that celibacy causes it. Could there be some connection or relationship? I am not sure. But what I am saying is that the Church has to recognize that it has a particular problem that is different than the random crimes of broader society, and deeper than the sin of occasionally breaking one’s vows. Until that fact is acknowledged, and the roots and causes of it addressed, we cannot possibly know whether some change in discipline would be helpful. I personally seriously doubt that being celibate (or trying to) makes one more likely to abuse children and young people.

I have not said “get rid of celibacy now” or anything like that. I think you are conflating my argument with those of others, instead of actually confronting the fact that the Church has an endemic, centuries long, serious problem.

 

[Feanor2]

Agreed, but it begs the question; either JPII either knew about it or was asleep at the wheel. If he simply believed the lie or was fooled then that raises a theological problem which is for someone who should be filled with or in tune with the Holy Spirit as leader of the Church; how could such a persistent mistake be made regarding all the scandals going on below him? This is a problem that is hard to answer.

CT04

The Pope is a fallible man. JPII was a holy Pope but maybe naive to the evils that went on in the priesthood.

I think his holiness in a way was kind of detrimental to him tackling the problem.

It’s an interesting question. How can we have someone so holy and yet naive? Can the two be linked?. I don’t know.

 

[RobertAdams]

JPII was a holy Pope but maybe naive to the evils that went on in the priesthood.

Naïveté does not seem to apply. To believe that accusations towards perpetrators were false slanders, is to actively believe evil of the victims.

I am more comfortable with just believing that sometimes holy people do the wrong thing.

 

[glencor63]

Clarify what you’re asking. I thought I was clear. They preceded Martin Luther by 200 years. They were a Proto-Protestant group in England.

Proto-" First, from which other things develop".

 

[glencor63]

Your comment below led me to believe that you think having married and celibate priests would destroy the priesthood. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

“We don’t throw out marriage because some folks don’t keep vows. So we don’t throw out priesthood because some priests don’t keep vows. That doesn’t mean I’m saying ‘whatabout’ or saying that it happens and there’s nothing to do about it”.

 

[RobertAdams]

You were very clear.

 

[glencor63]

Celibacy is the cover these men used to hide their homosexuality and and/or pedophilia. They always existed, but the creation of seminary culture after the Council of Trent fostered the development of an abuse culture for two reasons.

First, minor seminaries took boys before or just at puberty and isolated them from outside “influence”, including normal interaction with females. How can you understand your sexuality when it’s never discussed, explored, and enforced celibacy is the rule?

Second: Living isolated in a seminary at a young age prevents real life experiences. Most Protestant clergy attend seminary. They don’t live in a seminary. They attend seminary, while continuing to interact with the outside world.

Your thoughts?

 

[TMC]

I have heard both arguments before, and I think each may have merit. But I stand by my point that what is required is an actual honest look at the problem, which the Church has thus far been unable or unwilling to do.

That there is a cultural problem is manifest. The McCarrick report (even as sanitized as it appears to be) makes that clear. There are some just purely bad folks. But the more alarming thing is that people that appear to be otherwise upstanding, ordinary people are choosing to lie, cover up and ignore abuse. The “good news” in the McCarrick report is that the various Popes did not have the full story because bishops and Church investigators lied to them. How is that good? It is undisputed evidence that we are not talking about one off individual offenses, but rather about something that has permeated the culture to the point that covering it up, and/or ignoring it becomes not only acceptable but expected.

So are the things you mention problems - attracting those already uncomfortable with their sexuality, isolating them from society, actively preventing them from “growing up” in a social and sexual sense? They likely are. Is that a) the root problem, b) a big part of the problem, c) a small aspect of the problem, d) a symptom of the problem, e) not really a problem at all? I don’t think that can be said with any certainty until and unless the problem is admitted and really studied.

 

[SpaghettiCowboy]

I’m late to the thread, so please pardon my disruption of the flow. I’d like to join the conversation.

How the church leadership handled abuse for decades is an abomination. And I think we can say that the derilection of responsibility cuts across the trad/prog spectrum.

But what strikes me in this thread are the comments like these:

“I remember discussing the topic with other laity in 1991.”

“… it was definitely around in the early 1990s. There were news articles about priests and pastors in our neighborhood who were commiting sexual abuse on minors.”

“Looking back now, I see the sexual abuse scandal as a commonly known secret.”

“I also remember it being sort of a ‘known’ secret, and even the topic of crude jokes at least back to the 80s, and probably before then.”

“It was around forever. John R. Powers wrote three books of fiction about Catholic school kids set in the 60s and 70s…”

“My late mother told me of a priest in the 1940s, in her parish. It was a well-known secret to parents to never leave their sons alone with that priest.”

“As a child in the 1960’s I knew…”

I’m not trying to point fingers. I, too, have a story from when I was becoming a Catholic as a teenager in the late 1970s. We-- that is, I and other Catholic boys my age-- talked frequently among ourselves about our parish priest and his tendency to ask prying personal, sexual questions of us individually that were clearly outside of his pastoral role. In retrospect, although none of us experienced physical abuse, there were clues that he was on a path to abuse, which did, in fact, happen to other young victims later. I still carry guilt from my and my friends’ silence.

My point is that we, the laity were enablers, too. We knew that this kind of stuff was going on, but we generally did not raise the alarm. We deflected, excused, worked around, ignored, and said to ourselves, “well, he’s weird in that way, but he’s a good priest…”

I tend to blame clericalism, or at least its corollary in the way we laypersons interact with the clergy. We acknowledge that priests are fallible humans like us, but we continue to treat them with the deference that is traditional in our church and which too many of them seem to be quite content to receive. Our silence and willingness to remain silent aided and abetted the abuse culture.

 

[TMC]

My point is that we, the laity were enablers, too. We knew that this kind of stuff was going on, but we generally did not raise the alarm. We deflected, excused, worked around, ignored, and said to ourselves, “well, he’s weird in that way, but he’s a good priest…”

This is an excellent point, as is your point about clericalism. But its time for the laity to step up to the plate and take responsibility, including by holding the clerical class responsible for doing their part.

 

[glencor63]

I think having seminarians live with carefully vetted host families would help too. It’s harder to spend your free time drinking and carousing, if you’re living in a family setting. The men could meet up for group activities in carefully planned interactions with strict monitoring. According to reports, the seminaries Cardinal McCarrick visited were more akin to a debauched fraternity house than a holy, religious environment. The seminarians dedicated to living a holy life were ridiculed, ostracised, and isolated. That’s terrible! That’s not to say ALL seminaries are bad, but place these young men in a loving, supportive family environment and see what happens. This is just a suggestion.

 

[glencor63]

I didn’t grow up Catholic and while I love the Catholic faith, I’ve decided to leave the Catholic Church, after a long period of discernment. It’s a hard decision. The bullying of Catholics into voting for Donald Trump by many members of the clergy was my breaking point. I consider it spiritual abuse! Trust me enough to respect my word when I say I’m still Pro-Life, but opposed to racism. Donald Trump has an Anti-Christ spirit. He violates unapologetically ALL the commandments and embodies none of the Fruits of the Spirit.

Catholics aren’t taught to challenge the clergy, but to obey without question. I want to become a Theologian. As a woman and oppositional learner, one who never accepts settled opinion without rigorous debate; there is no place for me within Catholic culture, and thus no place for me within the Catholic Church. I love the sacraments, the Eucharist, Mass, liturgical worship, saints, and the Blessed Mother, but not Catholic culture. The two are interlinked. I’ll probably practice Catholicism in a Lutheran, or Anglican environment or simply attend an Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[OraLabora]

But you see, you DO seem to be implying that the Church’s sex abuse problem is ‘different from’ sex abuse anywhere else and that the problem is directly related to both the ‘institution’ (i.e. clericalism and ‘coverups’ and to ‘celibacy’, i.e., ‘no marriage leads to abuse).

Two things to keep in mind. One, the Church is claiming a position of moral authority on sexual teaching, while a too-large proportion of her clergy, including at the very top, are not complying with that teaching while insisting that we, the little people, MUST comply with it under pain of mortal sin. That greatly undermines her moral authority. It’s called “hypocrisy”, it is clericalist (different standards for clergy and the little people) and it completely destroys trust in the Church; I know I have completely lost my trust in the Church when it comes to sexual teaching.

IMHO, given that these men should be leading by example, the proportion of sexual abuse in the Church should be way LESS than in society. Not zero, that is mission impossible. But it should be way less, and cases of abuse or misconduct whether between adults or an adult and a minor, need to be dealt with swiftly. That has not been done. The problems have been swept under the rug, transferred to other places and all with total lack of empathy for the victims. This further undermining the Church’s moral authority to teach on sexuality and kills the remaining shreds of trust.

(to be continued)

 

[OraLabora]

(cont’d)

Two: there is no question in my mind that the policy on celibacy has discouraged good, mature men with a healthy sexuality, from the priesthood (and religious life), and on the flip side, has attracted men with unresolved sexual issues and sexual immaturity. Any healthy discussion on the issues of abuse must include the subject of celibacy. Otherwise, it won’t be an honest discussion.

I myself feel that celibacy should be ended for the diocesan priesthood. However I recognize this is above my pay grade. If the Church decides to continue with celibacy, she must put in place more robust screening measures to filter out the bad apples and the men without a mature understanding of their own sexuality.

And if she takes this route, she must be prepared for a significant reduction in vocations. We all know of the problem of a homosexual subculture in many (far too many) seminaries. As a heterosexual man, even though I respect gays and count gays among my best friends, I have no desire to live in such a subculture. It’s not homophobia… it’s simply a lack of affinity. As a heterosexual man, given the choice of living with a woman and raising a family, or living in such a subculture, the answer is very clear. Hence it becomes a self-perpetuating problem.

Last point: Jesus promised us, after giving the keys to Peter, that never the gates of Hades shall prevail against the Church. These scandals, and the Church’s inability to engage in an honest self-examination of their root cause where everything is on the table, has me seriously questioning if, in fact, Satan has taken us over. It has undermined my faith to the very core, to the point where I seriously doubt I’ll be going back to Church when the pandemic restrictions are finally lifted. I have also stopped giving to my parish until I get my head around this. Because if the promise to Peter to Jesus is false, then everything we built our faith upon is false. It is an extremely serious problem for the future of the Church.

This tendency to try to minimize the Church’s scandal by saying it is no worse than elsewhere, and the tendency to have sacred cows that can’t be discussed openly in trying to find out why this problem exists, will end up pushing the Church further into irrelevance in society.

 

[glencor63]

Eastern Orthodox Christians would argue that the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church because they still exist and have stayed true to scripture and the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[OraLabora]

If the Church decides to continue with celibacy, she must put in place more robust screening measures to filter out the bad apples and the men without a mature understanding of their own sexuality.

And what I wrote above is totally inadequate. As Glencor63 says above, seminary culture is a huge problem. Isolating men from women simply leads to an unhealthy way of relating to women. It is also profoundly insulting to heterosexual men to claim that they can’t interact with women in a healthy non-sexual way. My best friend, outside of marriage, happens to be a woman. There is zero sexual or romantic interest between us, but we can relate as man and woman, in the normal way that men and women complement each other except in the area of sexuality and romance. Maybe it’s old age (I’m 62) but clearly it’s possible for men and women to entertain healthy non-sexual friendships.

But if you isolate young men from women, they will never learn how to relate in a healthy way. And worse, you’ll turn off normal heterosexual men from entering seminary, or if they do enter, they’ll leave in a hurry.

So even how we organize priestly formation must absolutely be on the table. I don’t know what the solution would be… but clearly the current model is a big fail.

The bullying of Catholics into voting for Donald Trump by many members of the clergy was my breaking point. I consider it spiritual abuse! Trust me enough to respect my word when I say I’m still Pro-Life, but opposed to racism. Donald Trump has an Anti-Christ spirit. He violates unapologetically ALL the commandments and embodies none of the Fruits of the Spirit.

I have found this perplexing as well. I’m Canadian, and we don’t have this issue as abortion is an issue no Canadian political party will touch with a 10 ft pole, so we have never been pressured by our clergy on who to vote for, at least in recent times. In Québec’s “grande noirceur” (great darkness, up until the early 60s) it was a different matter.

If I were in the US however, I could fully understand your revulsion. I feel the same way about Trump.

 

[stpurl]

Shrug my shoulders? I did nothing of the kind. But that’s the sort of attitude that seems endemic to the “Catholic Church crisis’; when people are asked to take a long range and impartial view, they are blinded by their need to make this into something ‘above and beyond’ all other sexual abuses.

In asking for the abuse to be directed to healing throughout the entire world I am not ‘ignoring the Church’; in fact, I am putting it into its proper place.

In point of fact, along with working toward ending the abuse in the Church, we need to direct to the real heart of the matter and that has nothing to do with clergy but everything to do with the family. Because the majority of abuse is parent-child or spouse-spouse, not ‘clergy-clergy’ or ‘clergy-other’ (or school teacher-child, etc. Etc).

Because the entire concept of family —mother, father, and child—has been so incredibly abused and fractured, we are seeing huge incidences of all sorts of abuses which while still predominating in the family have spread out, to other ‘quasi-familial’ structures including that of a given society (village, state, country, etc.).

In order to heal the Church, we need to heal the family.

 

[OraLabora]

In order to heal the Church, we need to heal the family.

It’s not either-or. The Church leaders are meant to be our shepherds. They definitely need to work on themselves and lead us by example if they wish to stay relevant.