Ways to dialogue with people obsessed with church scandals

  • Thread starter Thread starter victrolatim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I maybe should have said ‘ancient traditions and practices’.
 
To when would you date each of them? I’d say about the year 400 hundred for the first two and the year 1300 for the next two. Am I wrong?
 
You can start by saying that church scandals has been present even during the time that Jesus was alive. He warned about it before he ascended to heaven.

Explain to them how the Church- the clergy and laity are actively fighting against abuses in the Church.

Of course, we want to address their intention, which usually goes somewhere in " discrediting the church". Respond by saying, " We can discredit specific people. But the teaching of the Church will never be discredited. We still follow the Ten Commandements. We still follow the Gospel. We still follow Church teachings and traditions about morality and way of life."

Continue by saying, " For those who failed to live up to their calling, there is forgiveness in the Church but there is accountability. If men cannot make them accountable, God will."
 
Remind them that;
a) The bible is quite clear on the topic of sexual immorality (sin)
b) Some/many unbelievers masquerade as clergy. (Not real priests)
c) A huge percentage of the unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable, hearsay accusations have never been tested in a court of law - why? Lack of evidence. Accused priest has died. Accuser eventually recanted.
d) The anti-Church zeitgeist hysteria directed by the sensationalist (atheistic) mainstream media at today’s Church leaders relates to events 20, 30, 40, 50 years old - alleged events over which today’s church leaders had no control whatsoever. In other words, innocent scapegoats. Moreover, for at least the last 10 years, the Church leadership bears no resemblance to the ‘bogeyman’ hierarchy depicted by its enemies. Transparency and meticulous scrutiny are now systemically embedded in every aspect of child protection in the daily Church life.
e) Lay parishioners are NOT accomplices and bear no guilt - no matter what disgraceful coverup action may have taken place. We owe no one an apology for the actions of other people.
f) The attacks on priests and slandering the many because of the deeds (done in darkness) by the few, must be seen they the lens of spiritual warfare. This is an attack by satan who knows that in order to scatter the flock you first attack the shepherd.

In my small diocese we’ve had three priests suspended, one convicted and in jail, in the last 18 months. I wouldn’t say that the “transparency and scrutiny” are so great. How did these three priests fly under the radar? The decriminalization of sodomy has put priestly misconduct in the ordinary category of being a 'weakness" instead of being something which automatically disqualifies them from active ministry.

Our bishop was totally blindsided by the problems with these three priests so I have NO confidence in the Church, top to bottom. There is no accountability. These priests and bishops are ordinary criminals covering up their crimes, walking around in plain view, until the rug gets pulled out from under them.

Regarding the title question, I’d say the Church has had misconduct problems from the beginning, including sexual scandals. Show me the Church with no sinners and I’ll take a look at it. Their’s are legitimate criticisms, but we are assured that Christ is with us.
 
You are so right. I agree with all of that. I’ll also add that, with the background checks, transparency, and scrutiny, I can’t imagine that there is now any safer place in the US than in a Catholic church.

How about these spots on TV, where they say that you can put in a claim for money if you were abused 40 years ago and you don’t even have to give your name. (How does that work?) That’s pretty handy. The priest is dead, any possible witnesses are dead, and you are going to say that you never mentioned this incident to anybody till now.
 
It would be nice if you’d distinguish between the thoughts and practices of society in general and those of the Church specifically. Many of the things you just listed reflect the thinking of people generally for a particular place and time, whether the people were pagan, Christian, atheist. Something like “clerical celibacy” can be said to be a Western Catholic Church tradition and practice (it doesn’t even apply to all Catholics). Something like the age at which a child was considered an adult is not Church-specific. And in fact the Church has sometimes been the force working to create structures where children would have more room to learn and mature and not be out on the streets fending for themselves while still children.

When you ascribe a whole basket of stuff to the Church and call it “tradition and practice”, it appears that you actually don’t know much about the Church and are mostly just here to criticize it.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
When you ascribe a whole basket of stuff to the Church and call it “tradition and practice”, it appears that you actually don’t know much about the Church and are mostly just here to criticize it.
Click to expand...
Really? I thought I knew a lot about the Church. But there is always room in my brain for more. I don’t know why you keep suggesting new ideas about why I am here. I have told you: I am here because I am interested in why people believe things and how they explain those beliefs, especially in response to countervailing evidence or views. To that end I discuss things with people and (in the case of this thread) give my honest views that I think help answer the OP’s question. The fact that we disagree on fundamental things does not make my contributions malicious.
 
FiveLinden said:
Lifelong celibacy.
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t agree with the Catholic Church on this requirement for all clergy but exactly how does ending lifelong celibacy prevent sex abuse and the cover up of such? No one has yet explained how that works without making up things. One advocate for survivors of sex abuse, not Catholic, was attacked by her own father and she finds people focusing on celibacy as a cause not only offensive but factually wrong and does nothing for survivors and preventing future abuse.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
exactly how does ending lifelong celibacy prevent sex abuse and the cover up of such? No one has yet explained how that works without making up things. One advocate for survivors of sex abuse, not Catholic, was attacked by her own father and she finds people focusing on celibacy as a cause not only offensive but factually wrong and does nothing for survivors and preventing future abuse.
Click to expand...
One can reference all kinds of married sex offenders until we’re blue in the face…Jerry Sandusky, dads who abuse their own children or their children’s friends, various non-Catholic clergy, school teachers etc…yet someone will always insist that allowing married men to join the priesthood will somehow get rid of all the “perverts” who abuse because married men are so much more well adjusted and/or because ordaining married men would allegedly get rid of homosexual abusers. I doubt very much that ordaining married men would be a cure-all, and in addition it would no doubt bring with it the problem of married priests who commit various forms of domestic abuse on their wives and/or children.

My impression is that most people who make these pronouncements have read/ studied very little about actual sexual abuse and have just decided they know better than the Church on this subject, or else they have an agenda for married priests anyway and will use any old excuse to push for it.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
My impression is that most people who make these pronouncements have read/ studied very little about actual sexual abuse and have just decided they know better than the Church on this subject, or else they have an agenda for married priests anyway and will use any old excuse to push for it
Click to expand...
What did you think of the detailed consideration of this matter by the Australian Royal Commission Bear? It is part of the very little I have read about it.
 
Last edited:
There are some people out there who are genuinely sincere, and just need to talk about the abuse scandal for whatever reason. They feel better after they talk about it. For these people, perhaps you should just listen. Answer questions when they ask.

Others are not so sincere. The polite way to deal with these people is, as Bear suggests, to change the subject to sports or weather. Sometimes I decide these types of situations are an ideal time to get another drink 🍷 and find somebody else to talk to.

Personally Luke 17:1-3 has helped me when I hear about this abuse crisis. Maybe it would help others. Jesus did tell us to be on guard…

Jesus said to his disciples, “Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come! It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and your were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble. Be on your guard!..”
Click to expand...

Being on guard to me means you shouldn’t always completely trust others. It is good advice.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Australian Royal Commission
Click to expand...
I’ve looked at it. I didn’t read the entire thing but word searched the PDFs of the Final Report and the relevant “Endnotes” sections.
In Book 1, the experts cited in its recommendation against mandatory celibacy were experts in culture but not actual biologists or neurologists.
In Book 2, the experts, this time psychologists but were vague. No biologists or neurologists. They just speculated. I didn’t see any medical journals cited. The Commission wrote there’s no evidence but some claim there’s a causal link. The psychologists provided nothing in detail that explained the casual link, if any. We just had to trust their word. That’s a big no-no in science and yet that’s precisely what the Commission did. I’m sure they’re well-meaning but that’s a serious methodological mistake.
Book 3 just reiterates what was mentioned in the other two.
 
Last edited:
It is not science, nor does it purport to be. The purpose of such Commissions is to establish on the basis of evidence, knowledge and consideration a wise course.
 
Obviously, one of the reasons people are obsessed with the church scandals in celibacy. It has literally been an issue for centuries. Martin Luther wrote significant criticisms of celibacy. So how do you dialogue with people obsessed with the church scandals and its relation to celibacy?

First, I’d stay away from the claim the mandatory celibacy is supported by scripture or dogma. It’s not.

Instead, try to engage people in a history lesson. Most people will run for cover, but a few may be interested. Those who might run for cover in a social context, might take your historical discussion up for another time and context. Some ideas for discussion…
  1. There is scripture to say celibacy is a good choice for some people.
  2. Historically priests were not suppose to engage with relationships with their wives. This means priest were likely older married men.
  3. Celibacy has allowed orders, like the Jesuits, to reach millions as missionaries.
  4. Celibacy made sense a couple hundred years ago when priests were often widowers who had children and families. Even recently there are more than a few Catholic priest who have been divorced and do have children.
  5. Explain the concept of Deacons historically and recently. In many communities and parishes Deacons play a massive role. The vast majority are married and they are ordained clergy. The permanent diaconate was brought back in the late 1960’s. Deacons today play much of the role that priests played 50-60 years ago.
    5.a. The Australian report may not be relevant to today because much of the data from the Australian report may come from a time when there were few or no Deacons in parishes.
    5.b. Deacons have played a major role historically in the Catholic church. St Francis of Assisi was an ordained Deacon and never an ordained a priest.
  6. There is discussion of about allowing older married men to become priests when needed in far flung areas…viri probati. The Catholic church is not being rigid on this, nor should they be.
So how do you deal with criticism of celibacy as it relates to the church abuse scandal. Talk about this stuff, and watch many people’s eyes glaze over as they try to find a way to excuse themselves and talk to somebody else. 😉 A few people may be genuinely interested.
 
Last edited:
Setting aside the mistaken impression that abusive priests abuse out of frustration with celibacy, it’s worth pointing out that celibacy has worked in the past and still works for a subset of priests. There will always be people for whom sex is pretty far down the priority list, and as you noted there are likely some older priests being ordained who have had ample time to consider what they want in life and picked a celibate priest path. We don’t hear much from those for whom celibacy works, probably because in today’s society if you are not that interested in sex and you’re under senior citizen age, people think there is something wrong with you, especially if you’re a man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top