Vatican comes under sharp criticism for sex abuse, UN committee

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed. And if we can’t trust our bishops and priests in moral guidance and leadership, whom can we trust?
Bingo. I expect more out of bishops and priests than the teachers at my local high school.

The Church should not crunch numbers and be delighted that ours is somewhat lower than average (namely, this avoids the wholesale cover-up of sex abuse by various Bishop’s conferences).

The idea that we should comfort ourselves with the deluding thought that we aren’t as bad as podunk school district is horrific. If that is our standard for moral excellence, then we are surely quite dishonest about just whose Church we belong to.
 
Vatican has no separation of church and state.
.
Hilarious. So how many cases of sexual abuse have actually happened in Vatican City?

I get so sick of the yellow journalism. The AP says this is the first time the Vatican has publically defended their policies at length. Hogwash. I have been reading statements for years. Perhaps it is the first time that the UN was the venue, but the application of this law is ridiculous. Where are the heads of states where these crimes took place? The Vatican only has political control of a few blocks inside Rome. The are not the police. They are not the religious.

Finally, concerning this accusation about silencing victims, where did that come from? This is the first I heard of that accusation. Is there some Vatican hit squad out there? I have heard of covering up information about the perpetrators a few decades ago, but I know of no reason that a victim could not have approached, law enforcement, you know, the real people responsible for enforcing the law.
 
Except that teachers do not operate in persona Christi.
Yet humanity remains and sexual deviant remain. Those that sought the priesthood for access to kids were not screened out. At least now, those with homosexual attraction are not being permitted. It is a start, but it is impossible to know the motive of every priesthood candidate.
 
Except that teachers do not operate in persona Christi. So clerical pedophilia in addition to being a heinous crime is a blasphemy.

THAT is the difference.
…wow. Way to totally, completely minimize the majority of all child abuse cases in America. I’m sure the parents of all of those kids rest comfortably at night, knowing that their childrens’ molesters at least didn’t commit blasphemy on the side.

Anything to sock it to the mean ol’ Church, eh?
 
Yet humanity remains and sexual deviant remain. Those that sought the priesthood for access to kids were not screened out. At least now, those with homosexual attraction are not being permitted. It is a start, but it is impossible to know the motive of every priesthood candidate.
So I guess we should just assume that every candidate for priesthood who has an unchosen attraction to men has the actual motive (in pursuing priesthood) of getting sexual access to boys. That sounds like a charitable assumption. :rolleyes:
 
Those that sought the priesthood for access to kids were not screened out. At least now, those with homosexual attraction are not being permitted. It is a start, but it is impossible to know the motive of every priesthood candidate.
Failures in the recruitment process do not excuse lack of oversight (to put it very charitably) by a direct superior.
 
Except that teachers do not operate in persona Christi. So clerical pedophilia in addition to being a heinous crime is a blasphemy.

THAT is the difference.
Priests are humans and as subject to temptation and sin as anyone, and priests have fallen into temptation and committed any number of sins, some of which are criminal. They do not act in persona Christi at all times in their lives, only when administering the Sacraments. Sacraments administered by an ordained priest remain sacramental and valid, even if the person committing them is sinful, a point that was settled by the early Church after some priests apostatized - the baptisms they had performed before their apostasy were still valid, as the Church decided.

Although the Catholic Church is the visible Body of Christ, it will attract people into its clerical ranks that have ulterior and self-serving motives. Any group that has regular contact with children will attract such people.

My actual point is that the Catholic Church is doing a far better job than other organizations in identifying and removing those people who have sinned against the Holy Spirit and also committed a criminal act. This was a hard-taught lesson, and Pope Benedict led from the front in this circumstance. The lessons have been wasted on other denominations, who are working overtime to ordain every openly lesbian or gay bishop they can.

The educational establishment is by far the worst offender for protecting child molesters (We have had 3 arrests since the start of the year among teachers in my state), and the unions and the collegial structure of faculty have been responsible for this in many states. That does not relieve individual priests and bishops of their moral responsibility, but they would be wise to look at what Pope Benedict did in order to cleanse their own houses.
 
So I guess we should just assume that every candidate for priesthood who has an unchosen attraction to men has the actual motive (in pursuing priesthood) of getting sexual access to boys. That sounds like a charitable assumption. :rolleyes:
It is not an assumption. As the vast majority of abuse was homosexual in origin, it was a reasonable precaution. IV drug users cannot give blood, but this is just a precaution, not an assumption the have AIDS. The Church wants to put the protection of children ahead of political correctness.
 
Failures in the recruitment process do not excuse lack of oversight (to put it very charitably) by a direct superior.
Omniscience belongs only to God. When screening candidates, the Church does not invoke divine revelation or mind-reading.
 
I said:
So I guess we should just assume that every candidate for priesthood who has an unchosen attraction to men has the actual motive (in pursuing priesthood) of getting sexual access to boys. That sounds like a charitable assumption.
You said:
It is not an assumption.
Are you willing to stand by the claim that every candidate for priesthood who has an unchosen attraction to men has the actual motive of getting sexual access to boys?

If you are willing to stand by that claim, then you are beyond the reach of reasonable discussion. Good day.
 
I said:

You said:

Are you willing to stand by the claim that every candidate for priesthood who has an unchosen attraction to men has the actual motive of getting sexual access to boys?

If you are willing to stand by that claim, then you are beyond the reach of reasonable discussion. Good day.
I never made that ridiculous claim. It is either an assumption on your part, a straw man you are making up, or an inability to understand grammar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top