Why Remain in RCC?

[Overture]

Regarding the scandals, how is it that the PARENTS of these children are never put to any blame? They leave their young children behind closed doors with adults they don’t really know for hours, days, sometimes over night. Let’s have a little parental responsibility here.

If you allow your 13 yr old boy to go camping alone with a 40 yr old man… um, asking for trouble, priest, minister, scout master, school teacher, coach, neighbor, friend…

I think that’s kind of a cynical attitude to have, personally. We’re taught to expect the best of people, and not to assume that everyone’s intentions are wholly bad all of the time. Trust is a good thing, and certainly one of the most important things. The issue and fault is with the abusers, not with the abused. We can’t go down that road-- I’m sorry. I know you want to defend priests, even if they have a sickness, but you can’t defend their actions as not 100% their fault.

When we succumb to, say, the desire to over-consume alcohol, do we place blame on the alcohol manufacturers? Do we place blame on the grocery store? No. We first and foremost place blame on ourselves for having given into temptation, not trusting in the Lord, and betraying what we know is right. Did the parent betray what they know is right by letting their children have closed-door interactions with their parish leader? Certainly not. So don’t blame them.

The parents had no way of knowing, and if everyone assumed everyone else was a criminal of some type, our society would be in even worse shape than it is. We already see symptoms of this. When an adult man enjoys being around kids for entirely wholesome reasons, he is automatically regarded with distrust and skepticism because of attitudes like this. Children are a blessing. We need to protect them from harm, not protect them from coming into contact with everyone.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Here’s what Joseph Ratzinger had to say (paraphrased):

campus.udayton.edu/mary/benedictxvi.html

 

[CrossofChrist]

Someone also posted this but I’ll do it again: catholic.com/magazine/articles/three-great-lessons-of-the-abuse-scandal

To clarify: the reason why there was delay on the part of some bishops to not have a zero tolerance policy like the U.S is

a. The relationship between the bishop and the priest is like father-son. It is incredibly painful for a bishop to have to deal with this.

b. A zero-tolerance policy can give the impression that the state has authority over the Church, and that the spiritual significance of the relationship between the priest and the bishop is meaningless.

c. That (a+b) leads to a neglect of Church teaching (further harming society, including in the area sexual morals), and possibly the teaching on the seal of Confession.

Now, with regards to JPII, keep in mind that the idea that priests are the ones committing these crimes, much less people who are Archbishops (Groer) was absurd. He was coming from the Soviet bloc, where priests died for the faith. And that happened for basically the Pope’s entire life, from the Nazis through the Soviets. Once JPII knew about the severity of the crisis, he took action.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Pope was not completely sincere, or that he willfully covered anything up.

 

[fencersmother]

Overture, we’re taught to expect the best of people? Not I! I was taught to be wary of everyone until they prove themselves. Still am. Especially of people in any position of power.

If you say the parents don’t have some fault, I respectfully disagree. My kids didn’t hang out with anyone alone behind closed doors. Ever.

 

[Duane1966]

Overture, we’re taught to expect the best of people? Not I! I was taught to be wary of everyone until they prove themselves. Still am. Especially of people in any position of power.

If you say the parents don’t have some fault, I respectfully disagree. My kids didn’t hang out with anyone alone behind closed doors. Ever.

Exactly what my parents said to me.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Interesting previous post about not trusting people.

When my father was in middle school, there was a pedophile priest at his parish.

He would often try to invite kids to his house to “hang out” and my grandparents forbade my father from going. They of course had no idea or could guess that the priest was a pedophile, but they just believed he was “odd” for other reasons. Even if he was a priest, my grandparents apparently thought children should not be hanging out with adults on a social basis, no matter who they were. They thought kids should hang out with kids, adults with adults.

Turns out they were very, very correct. Still though, it is unfair to blame the parents of these victims, mostly because they did not harm their own children. The idea that a priest would ever do that to a kid was ( at one time) so absurd and outrageous as to be unbelievable, especially coupled with what most Catholics believed about priests at that time.

 

[Overture]

Overture, we’re taught to expect the best of people? Not I! I was taught to be wary of everyone until they prove themselves. Still am. Especially of people in any position of power.

If you say the parents don’t have some fault, I respectfully disagree. My kids didn’t hang out with anyone alone behind closed doors. Ever.

Exactly what my parents said to me.

From the CCC:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way

I understand taking due protective measures and following your gut instinct, but I don’t think that chronic distrust, suspicion, or the practice of making people “earn” the right to not be on your list of “people unworthy of trust” is right. It’s a slippery slope from being inherently distrustful of others to slandering others based on your preconceived distrust. You’re more likely to confirm your negative bias if you come into a relationship expecting harm (which distrust automatically confirms).

I would say that the honorable and noble thing would actually be to, from the beginning, have people be at a base-line of, “I have no reason to distrust you,” and work from there, rather than, “I inherently distrust you because I distrust everyone unless they prove themselves to me.” I just don’t think your way of measuring people is compatible or reconcilable honestly, especially with the Church’s teaching on submission to authority.

Also, on totally moral, civil, and logical grounds, I can’t find any way in which the parents of abused children deserve some sort of blame or guilt. That’s about the same as saying, “Well, you shouldn’t have been wearing scanty clothes like that!” to a victim of rape. You’re saying, “You get what you ask for,” to the victims (the parents are also victims here) rather than placing all due blame on the people actually perpetrating crimes against other people. The parents didn’t do anything wrong. The notion that their priest, the man whom they see act in the very person of Christ, would not sexually abuse their children is not some radical leap of trust. We are taught to trust them. Some abused that trust.

 

[Michael19682]

Regarding the scandals, how is it that the PARENTS of these children are never put to any blame? They leave their young children behind closed doors with adults they don’t really know for hours, days, sometimes over night. Let’s have a little parental responsibility here.

If you allow your 13 yr old boy to go camping alone with a 40 yr old man… um, asking for trouble, priest, minister, scout master, school teacher, coach, neighbor, friend…

The biggest blame to me lies with the bishops, who may themselves be homosexual pedophiles, who allowed the abuse to go on, year after year. Nice place in hell for those people.

I am slightly older than your sample case. I resent that I would be distrusted with a youngster simply because of my age and status as a single man. With the way women are today, its a wonder any man would want to be married. The only reason I would ever marry would be for love or to have a child of my own. With women it seems the denominator is money, money, and money. And now, the new tyranny – safety, safety, safety.
It is because of attitudes like the above that I can’t help with children anywhere. I feel like a criminal if a child so much as wanders near me in public. Obsession with safety takes its victims; and these are single men. But no one cares about that. Its okay to abuse single men by depriving them of normal, right of passage contact with kids?

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Someone also posted this but I’ll do it again: catholic.com/magazine/articles/three-great-lessons-of-the-abuse-scandal

To clarify: the reason why there was delay on the part of some bishops to not have a zero tolerance policy like the U.S is

a. The relationship between the bishop and the priest is like father-son. It is incredibly painful for a bishop to have to deal with this.

b. A zero-tolerance policy can give the impression that the state has authority over the Church, and that the spiritual significance of the relationship between the priest and the bishop is meaningless.

c. That (a+b) leads to a neglect of Church teaching (further harming society, including in the area sexual morals), and possibly the teaching on the seal of Confession.

Now, with regards to JPII, keep in mind that the idea that priests are the ones committing these crimes, much less people who are Archbishops (Groer) was absurd. He was coming from the Soviet bloc, where priests died for the faith. And that happened for basically the Pope’s entire life, from the Nazis through the Soviets. Once JPII knew about the severity of the crisis, he took action.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Pope was not completely sincere, or that he willfully covered anything up.

I trust you are a priest?

I still don’t see why its that hard at all, and not quite easy. It may be painful for a bishop to deal with an abusive “son priest” of his, but is the pain tantamount to that of the child victim of his errant son and his parents? If bishops commonly had biological sons, would their attitude be exactly the same? It seems symptomatic of narcissism if some can feel their own pain on one issue and not consider seriously the pain of another. As if there is an adequate comparison in this case…

I also don’t see why “zero tolerance” would lead to the idea that the state has authority over the church, or how it would have anything else to do with birth control, gay marriage, et al. It should not be hard to say for anyone, that priests who break the laws and are a menace to society should go to prison.

There must be something I am missing. I’d love to know what it is.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

I am slightly older than your sample case. I resent that I would be distrusted with a youngster simply because of my age and status as a single man. With the way women are today, its a wonder any man would want to be married. The only reason I would ever marry would be for love or to have a child of my own. With women it seems the denominator is money, money, and money. And now, the new tyranny – safety, safety, safety.
It is because of attitudes like the above that I can’t help with children anywhere. I feel like a criminal if a child so much as wanders near me in public. Obsession with safety takes its victims; and these are single men. But no one cares about that. Its okay to abuse single men by depriving them of normal, right of passage contact with kids?

Are you a priest?

Why would you feel like a criminal even as a single man or even as a priest ( if you are one?) or think that people believed you to be one? As long as you are not unduly familiar with children that are not your own, and just do what is normal, I don’t see how anyone would think ill of you.

Do you believe safety is the new tyranny? I tend to see the perhaps excessive culture of safety as “erring on the side of caution”.

What right of passage contact do you need as a single man with kids? May I ask your position?

Tell me you aren’t comparing your lack of company of children, with child abuse victims themselves? I take you do not knowsomeone abused as a child, or a child who has recently been abused. I think if you had, you would not find such a comparison valid at all.

 

[Michael19682]

Are you a priest?

Why would you feel like a criminal even as a single man or even as a priest ( if you are one?) or think that people believed you to be one? As long as you are not unduly familiar with children that are not your own, and just do what is normal, I don’t see how anyone would think ill of you.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Find a Catholic sex abuse victim and ask them what they think of the media coverage of this phenomena. You said you are in your 40s? If so, it is not unreasonable to think that you had at least one offender priest when you were growing up. Perhaps someone from your own parish?

 

[Yago]

@ aboveuser, don’t worry, I am aware that the vast majority of pedophiles are not Catholic priests. Then again, how many Catholic priests does one know compared to the non priest population?

I have read the above articles, and am not sure I agree with them either. I don’t see why its hypocritical for people to criticize the Church on the sex abuse issue while being complacent on pre-marital sex or homosexuality. While both are wrong in Church teaching, the former is justly considered a crime by society, and the latter, justly not. I don’t see why one should conflate the two.

Furthermore, I sometimes think that statues of limitation extension is an appropriate thing. It often takes a long time for victims to speak out about what happened to them, especially when prior to 25 years ago, it was very difficult to impossible to do so, seeing as they often wouldn’t be believed, or wouldn’t have the wherewithal to do so. More than money settlements are won in such lawsuits, often appropriate to compensate the victim for psychological, emotional, and loss of benefit damages that the hierarchy often was the “proximate cause of” and which of course had a “reasonable duty of care” in regard to the children of their dioceses.

In addition to money, priests names get released, making people safer, and more knowledgable. In my diocese, as a result of a lawsuit, the names of 14 previously sealed “credibly accused” priests will be revealed, which I think is a positive development.

Know, brother, that, The Church is HOLY. It is the Body of the Lamb without blemish or spot, who was yet called “Beelzebub”.

 

[sepgs2004]

Dear brothers,

Wishes in the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I see here some take a very affected and “blow-it-out” approach on this abuse. Same kind of attitude goes with rape. One thing good is that sins of humanity publicly comes out.

Other thing is every one will use the news to their advantage. One example is media. Other examples are people who want some interesting information to start their day or some gossip as part of the creamer in their a coffee etc.

I do not think and believe that, just because we blow it out or analyze the matter so much in our “wisdom” and present it in the media or whatever, will curb the affairs of it. It may appear to curb. Sin will find its way out again in another form. Only God’s Love can help.

I would say… when I was a boy myself, mostly between 9 to 13 years age, I was abused, although not by any priests, but by couple people older than me. To me whether priests or common people would not make any difference. It makes a big difference to the media. Because with priests in context, on these issues, things get much attention, color, and so much life & safety to the reporter and mediators etc.

Through that experience, as a boy, I myself started to engage in such activities with one or two other boys of same age with me.

However, by our Loving God, I was given a choice and possibility to stay away from these abusing people after the initial encounters. Not too later, I was blessed to quit my such behavior too. From its beginning, I knew it was sick. Even the abusers were doing this in secret, which by itself proves that they themselves thought it as a sick behavior. I somehow sensed that they kept this in secret, not only because they will be punished or whatever, but also because they thought they were doing some wrong thing. One can sense this attitude with care-full, fearless and sincere observation.

I did not need to be taught by media or any wise guy “with suit and smile” on this. God has given me, and so I believe to every other boy or girl, enough understanding to figure it out. I strongly believe God leads every human being (in everything except sin itself) to His purpose which is for the ultimate goodness.

I could have complained or reported this abusers or even the incidents to someone. Sure the media and local news papers would have liked my story, and would have treated me with care and time, and so would have blown the event out for their advantage.

For some reason, God had put in me a different spirit that, if given a chance, would like to be ready to die (lose my life) for a sinner, forgiving, letting them know of their sin…

Recently, after couple decades, I met one of them, now leading a better, good and pious life. I am very very happy and am very peaceful that God made this whole thing into a heavenly fruit. As far as I know, the other person also leads a normal life with family and all.

As the abusees, I believe that we have to somehow express the abusing persons that they are doing sin. It is my belief that the abusees has the most grace available to turn the thing upside down and heal the whole thing.

The deal may be to express through our unwillingness or express our pain, or by running away from them or through so many other possible ways. After we try our part the best, then we would go to seek help from others. What good is there for the strength of the Graces that God gives us in our soul if it cannot handle these thing on its own?

By this I am not supporting abuse… I am just sharing my belief that most of the cases can be handled at the individual level, seeking God’s Love, and can be healed completely.

Thanks

 

[Michael19682]

Find a Catholic sex abuse victim and ask them what they think of the media coverage of this phenomena. You said you are in your 40s? If so, it is not unreasonable to think that you had at least one offender priest when you were growing up. Perhaps someone from your own parish?

Not really a response.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I trust you are a priest?

No, but that’s what I’ve read from others who have commented on this who are ordained. Br. JR has written some insightful things on CAF about this topic if you look for some of his posts.

I still don’t see why its that hard at all, and not quite easy. It may be painful for a bishop to deal with an abusive “son priest” of his, but is the pain tantamount to that of the child victim of his errant son and his parents?

Maybe an adequate comparison is how God views Jews and Gentiles. Both are sons, one adopted. But son nonetheless.

If bishops commonly had biological sons, would their attitude be exactly the same? It seems symptomatic of narcissism if some can feel their own pain on one issue and not consider seriously the pain of another. As if there is an adequate comparison in this case…

It’s not like bishops (I’m thinking of Cardinal Hoyos here) are thinking, “It’s terrible how bishops are required to report this so I have no sympathy for the victims of pedophiles.” They want to help.

In these cases we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused. Furthermore, we invite the bishops to give all spiritual - and not only spiritual - assistance to those victims. In a recent case concerning a priest condemned by a civil tribunal in Italy, it was precisely this Congregation that suggested to the plaintiffs, who had turned to us for a canonical trial, that they involve the civil authorities in the interests of victims and to avoid other crimes.

vatican.va/resources/resources_mons-scicluna-2010_en.html

I also don’t see why “zero tolerance” would lead to the idea that the state has authority over the church, or how it would have anything else to do with birth control, gay marriage, et al. It should not be hard to say for anyone, that priests who break the laws and are a menace to society should go to prison.

In America, the state doesn’t have a history of trying to exert its authority over the Church. Religion has been independent of the state and it’s actually been religion that has influenced public life, for the most part. In other English speaking countries, which have a similar history in that respect as regards Catholicism, a zero tolerance policy makes a ton of sense. American bishops have been very vocal in support of it (and I agree).

In other countries, relations aren’t very good historically between Church and state. France is a great example of that in recent times. Spain could be as well. Then we must consider countries that are biased against Christians in a much more overt way than perhaps we are used to. The Holy See can’t base a law on our own cultural situation here in the states and apply that across the globe. That’s why there isn’t a zero tolerance policy everywhere, and, in a spirit of collegiality, discretion is, AFAIK, left to individual bishops.

There must be something I am missing. I’d love to know what it is.

Pray the rosary, spend time in Eucharistic adoration, or something similar to those. The truth of Catholicism doesn’t rest on the sinfulness of its members. It’s truth rests on Jesus who, despite all of the sinners and betrayers of Christ within the Church, shines forth in beauty in the Church.

I encourage you to read this: campus.udayton.edu/mary/benedictxvi.html

 

[idolatry]

After the Bread of Life discourse in John’s Gospel, people were disgruntled and walking away. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Surely Jesus wasn’t hiding sin, like the bishops were hiding systemic paedophilia

 

[YADA]

Not that I think their right, but you don’t hear about abuse in other churches, such as unitarians, Lutherans or Episcopalians on the same level. Where the millions of dollars in abuse payouts these churches have to pay for negligence, and the citywide grand jury reports on their failures?

Not that I think their right or that there is a correlation, but its funny that these churches that even allow gays and women as bishops don’t seem to have as big of a problem of sheltering pedophiles.

Child sex abuse is evil and destroys lives … I know - I am a survivor of child sexual abuse from the late 1950s - early 1960s … No - not by clergy - not catholic - not protestant … And FYI - it was a married man - our landlord …

Did my parents know? - Yes … I told them - even though I was a young child …

Was this abuser brought to justice? . No …

Did my parents inform the authorities No …

Had this man offended before? - I have no doubt he had

Did he offend again? - most probably yes …

Did the adults that should have kept me safe fail me? Yes …

Before you leave the Church that our Lord founded - please consider carefully.

Educate yourself about the Church and the abuse scandals … Yes - it was poorly handled but here are a couple of articles you should read for perspective … the Church is not the only one that handled this stuff wrongly in the past … however, as an institution that has a 2000 year continuous operation - it is unique in suits brought … no Baptist church could be sued by a victim when the pastor who committed the abuse had been dead a decade or more and the church elders [if they had one ] dead … but the Catholic Church can be sued for abuse when the priest who is accused is dead, the Bishop who assigned him I dead and even if the local parish has ceased to function because our Church is apostolic - there are successors - and anti-Catholicism is alive and well … its sells papers

catholicleague.org/sexual-abuse-in-social-context-clergy-and-other-professionals-2/

catholicleague.org/sex-abuse-and-signs-of-fraud/

 

[Path_Finder]

We should remember, those who do Holy Work and succeed are going to come under the attack of dark forces.

 

[idolatry]

We should remember, those who do Holy Work and succeed are going to come under the attack of dark forces.

Is the doubt of HabemusFrancis a holy work?