The Pope's Apology. Does it go far enough?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, Frelga, that was not at all well though out. In fact, it was a total brain-fart and Jews have every right to be offended.

What was he thinking?

I think the answer to that is that he wasn't.

[Cerin]

Being as charitable as I possibly can over this, I can only say that this statement was not very well thought through.

I don't know why you all think it wasn't thought through. This exactly reflects what we've been hearing from the church, about it being about anti-Catholic bigotry and people out to get the Pope, and we're sorry 'they' did this to you -- no one taking responsibility. It's right in line with it.

[sauronsfinger]

from Solicitr

Were you paying attention? It was the police who were different then. It was the police who refused to believe the charges or pursue the matter further. Back in the 1970s law enforcement was not trained to deal with cases of child sexual abuse, and typically handled them very poorly.

Please do not confuse not paying attention with not accepting your excuses for church authorities failing to turn in child molesters. One can indeed pay very close attention, read what you say, understand what you say and then completely reject it and disagree with it.

to believe you and accept your line of excuse - there were no child molesters convicted in that era and it is only recently that such crimes have been successfully reported and prosecuted. That is simply not the case.

That excuse for inaction on the part of the Church authorities simply will not fly.

[solicitr]

Cerin, that's, to put it politely, not right.

This fool Fr Cantalamessa can't observe the distinction that there is a difference, a big one, between holding accountable pedophile priests and the officials and offices which shielded them on the one hand, and on the other the people who really are "out to get the Pope", by trying by any scurrilous means available to link him to the scandals.

And then there's the separate issue of having the nerve to compare the persecution of the Jews!!!!!!

[solicitr]

excuses for church authorities failing to turn in child molesters.

The police investigated Fr Murphy. There was no "turning in" to be done in that case.

The Church did, however, of its own accord remove him from all pastoral duties. Which is as much as it could do- there's no Church Jail.

[sauronsfinger]

Father Murphy is one man. Only one lone man. What about the many many others in a very large crowd who did pure evil to innocent children? Do you have an excuse for each and every one of those many cases also?

[solicitr]

Do you have an excuse for each and every one of those many cases also?

Apples and cinderblocks, to quote somebody or other.

Why should I excuse any of the creeps? Why would I? The Murphy case in Wisconsin is one discrete case, which is significant because some people have tried to link Pope Benedict to it.

"Excuse." Pshaw. You're being deliberately insulting, as well as wilfully obtuse (one of your specialties); but I won't rise to the bait.

[Cerin]

And then there's the separate issue of having the nerve to compare the persecution of the Jews!!!!!!

But that's what I'm saying. I don't think that's a symptom of not thinking through, but of believing they are the victims of such persecution. It's a view into their mindset.

[sauronsfinger]

The number of innocent children who have been sexually molested by Catholic priests is a vast and ugly forest. By attempting to make this about a single case, you are focusing on one single tree which you think you can explain away.

I am disagreeing with you. I am rejecting your arguments. I am NOT insulting you. Unless of course you think that a strong rejection of your position is somehow a personal insult to you. That is NOT what is going on here.

[solicitr]

Nonsense, sf. I am discussing a particular case which, the NYT is claiming, implicates the Pope.

I am NOT trying to dodge the argument; the subthread is, specifically, about Mo Dowd's column and the charges she made against Josef Ratzinger personally. It is you who are trying to change the subject by bringing up other cases.

I am disagreeing with you. I am rejecting your arguments

Are you thus asserting that the Pope is guilty? If not, you're ducking my arguments.

(And, yes, implying that I 'excuse' pedophiles was an insult, and you bloody well know it).

[sauronsfinger]

You once chided me for being condescending to you. I see the shoe is now on the other foot.

Here is the opening post from Alatar about the subject of this thread

To those unaware of this, the Pope has issued a Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, apologising for the abuses carried out by members of the Catholic church and the cover-ups and non-cooperation of officials and priests in hiding the abuse and protecting abusers, often moving them to other parishes where they abused again. Now, some here are welcoming the apology as a step in the right direction, while others feel it doesn't go far enough.

This is a thread about abuse of children by Catholic priests. This is a thread about a cover-up of that abuse by Church officials. This is a thread about protecting abusers and those who covered for them so that they abused again and again and again.

This is NOT a thread about any one case, no matter how much you want to make it about any one case because you feel the facts, or at least your slant on the facts, favor your position.

You want to lecture me about the purpose of this thread. Go for it. But you first may want to PM Alatar and get him to change his opening post because it is NOT what you want it to be.

[Primula Baggins]

Let's cool down the rhetoric, please; you are getting very close to insulting each other and having your posts moved to Nan Elmoth.

[vison]

But that's what I'm saying. I don't think that's a symptom of not thinking through, but of believing they are the victims of such persecution. It's a view into their mindset.

That's how I see it, too, Cerin.

I wonder if someone could explain to me who the pope's "enemies" are,

. . . the people who really are "out to get the Pope", " by trying by any scurrilous means available to link him to the scandals.

And, why? Are these enemies in the church? Disaffected cardinals or something?

[solicitr]

And, why? Are these enemies in the church? Disaffected cardinals or something?

Vison, you're a very, very smart lady. It's unbecoming in you to play clueless.

[vison]

And, why? Are these enemies in the church? Disaffected cardinals or something?

Vison, you're a very, very smart lady. It's unbecoming in you to play clueless.

Well, I might be smart but evidently I'm not smart enough. I'm serious. Who wants to destroy this pope?

I know there are many people in the world who don't love the RCC, but I don't - and I mean I don't - know who or what would view this one guy as a particular enemy. Do you mean that this is just some big, systematic plot? Do you think "the protestants" are out to bring down the church?

Is the enemy "the atheists"?

For myself, I have no particular dislike of this pope over any other. He's not as interesting (as far as I know) as some of the earlier popes. He means nothing to me beyond representing a world I don't live in.

[solicitr]

Vison, there is no monolithic world conspiracy, naturally. There are, however, an awful lot of people, among the clergy, the laity, and outside the Church, who have long regarded Josef Ratzinger as the wicked arch-conservative who has prevented the Church from getting with the modern world and reversing its outdated doctrine on [insert here]. Perhaps nothing so ticked off at least one group as his defrocking of several revolutionary-Marxist "liberation theology" priests (never mind that he was carrying out John Paul's decision)- that earned him the undying hatred of a lot on the hard left (including a few radical clergy). I am also afraid that, practically as soon as he was elected, the effort (and it was an effort) to portray the German Pope as an "ex-Nazi" gained him the deep distrust of many, especially Jews (which makes me especially sad).

Mo Dowd actually serves as a good example of the sort of thinking I'm describing: raised Catholic, left the Church because it was (gasp!) conservative and cramped her style, and in a fuzzy nostalgic Christmas Vigil sort of way remains kinda sorta affectionate for the Church as a concept, if only it would get rid of those horrible reactionaries like Benedict and become more like the Unitarians or something.

[vison]

Well, of course, I have known many Catholics in my life. Some were very nice people and some weren't. But most of them have left the RCC. Offhand, I can think of only one who is still a regular churchgoer. She has one brother who was a priest, who left the priesthood and is now married and the father of 2 children. She has one sister who was a nun, and who is not a nun any more. This was a really, really, really devout family. Of the 11 children, she is the only one who is still faithful.

Mind you, when I was a kid, most of the people I went to school with went to one kind of church or another. I was the oddball, since no one in my Canadian family has been religious as far back as we can see. Norway, different story, but that's why the Norwegian grandpa left Norway.

The RCC has, of course, the "right" to do as it likes and to stay on the course it has charted at this time. But the RCC has changed course in the past and probably will again. Will it be "enough" to bring the lambs back to the fold? I doubt it, myself. This may be seen as a sad thing by some. By me, it seems to be evolution at work.

[sauronsfinger]

from Vison

Well, of course, I have known many Catholics in my life. Some were very nice people and some weren't. But most of them have left the RCC. Offhand, I can think of only one who is still a regular churchgoer. She has one brother who was a priest, who left the priesthood and is now married and the father of 2 children. She has one sister who was a nun, and who is not a nun any more. This was a really, really, really devout family. Of the 11 children, she is the only one who is still faithful.

My experience is rather similar to yours Vison. In fact, just this morning on talk radio a writer from the Boston Globe religion page was saying that a real fear from the new European scandals is that the only place the Catholic Church is NOT losing its flock is in the Third World.


from Solicitr

There are, however, an awful lot of people, among the clergy, the laity, and outside the Church, who have long regarded Josef Ratzinger as the wicked arch-conservative who has prevented the Church from getting with the modern world and reversing its outdated doctrine

It is indeed possible to read the record of Ratzinger and conclude that he is a conservative who is preventing the Church from reversing outdated practiced imposed by previous administrations and have nothing to do with religion, spirituality or salvation. That is an opinion based on observation that people have a right to hold. There is nothing wrong with that and to take such a position is not irrational, irresponsible or anti-religion.

It is very possible to oppose past decisions of the Church hierarchy and still be a spiritual person seeking God.

It is very possible to oppose the decisions of a man in a position of Church authority and still be a spiritual person seeking God.

And it is very possible for anyone to reject man made rules and regulations which come and go with different eras and still be a spiritual person seeking God.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The thread is getting very close to being untenable here. We've already had to edit several posts, but we don't want to have to lock this important thread. Please have a care.

[vison]

. . . . It is very possible to oppose past decisions of the Church hierarchy and still be a spiritual person seeking God.

It is very possible to oppose the decisions of a man in a position of Church authority and still be a spiritual person seeking God.

And it is very possible for anyone to reject man made rules and regulations which come and go with different eras and still be a spiritual person seeking God.

In so far as I can agree with sauronsfinger, I think those are perfectly rational and non-confrontational remarks. I can't enter into the spirit of them, but certainly I can't see anything wrong.

The role of religion is not what it was even 50 years ago. That is a thing that cannot be ignored. The RCC may decide to work toward being "relevant", whatever that means, or it may not.

I forgot in my earlier post: I do have a religious relative in Canada. My aunt Fia, one of my mother's 7 sisters, converted to the RCC in 1943 in order to marry my late uncle Al. She is still nominally a Catholic but has not gone to mass since my uncle died 5 years ago.