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

[Lurker]

I'm Catholic born and raised who also attend a Basilian Order run boy's school for 13 years and I am also upset like most of you but I am not changing "affiliations" just because the Pope didn't go too far, which I agree as well. In every religious organization I'm sure there are sexual predators lurking behind the scenes, we don't know if they were "covered up" as well since the victims are too afraid to come out or nobody believed them so don't point fingers right away that only the RCC covers up. Has the media outlets made a big deal out of other religious organizations that also have the same problems within their fold? NO, because it's not a big story unlike the RCC, wow, the only religious order which imposes that priests be celibate, right? What did Jesus say, "whoever amongst you has not sinned cast the first stone". I apologize if my quote is not that accurate, not a biblical scholar here. We are all human beings, nobody is perfect.

Most of the priests accused of molestation are past their 60's. During their time, you can enter priesthood at the age of 12 or your family forced you to the priesthood because their should be one priest in every family. There are no "sexual outlets" like movies, skimpy clad women in commercials etc... or a few of them are really "gay" and priesthood is the only way to hide their sexuality back then. I know this is not an excuse for what happened but I'm just telling you this could have been the cause for the wide spread "molestation charges".

Now, young men entering the priesthood are more mature, a few have tried almost everything drugs, sex, watched porno movies, been to strip clubs etc...believe me I know one or two, thus, they are already in their 30's when they entered. They told me they are really sure they still want to be priests (and they can easily relate to the problems of younger people ). I won't say that because of these change in the cultural landscape "sexual predators" in the organization will stop but this has minimized it. Hopefully, next time this happens, they won't be secretive about it.

[vison]

Nature has provided men and women with "sexual outlets": to be blunt, at the ends of their arms.

Molesting children is not an "alternate sexual outlet" for men who have no other, it is a sexual orientation and the men who do it are called pedophiles. Often these sorts of men choose occupations or hobbies involving children - particularly occupations or hobbies where parents TRUST them: priests, schoolteachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.

[Lurker]

I do agree with you and some of them are "molested as kids" as well. Plus the fact, children are an easy prey they are very vulnerable.

I tossed "alternate sexual outlet" on my post because to some men even women a tween (12-14) are not kids to them anymore, they are young adults and it is easier to prey on them than trying to get a hooker to come back to their place esp. if they are situated in a small town and everybody knows everybody. (I think the age range of the victims were between 6-14 years old.)

[JewelSong]

I think the issue here is not that problems of sexual abuse and pedophilia don't arise in other organizations - it is the continued cover-up, cover-your-ass mentality of the RCC.

And the doctrine/idea/teaching that a priest is somehow closer to God that a "regular" person and so what he does is somehow less likely to be challenged. That, in fact, if a priest molests you, it's probably your fault somehow.

Any person in authority (Scout master, teacher, doctor) who uses his position to abuse children is reprehensible...but I find it particularly onerous when it is a priest, especially since the children have been indoctrinated to revere and even fear the priest.

Why are these cases not in the courts? Why was the church allowed to handle them "in house?" And swearing the child to a vow of secrecy...the only reason for that was to protect the reputation of the church. It had nothing to do with helping the child.

Yes, other religions have had this problem. And the perpetrators are tried in a court of law and sent to jail, not sent to another parish and yet another and still another. Sorry, Lurker, this IS peculiar to the RCC.

I think what I am not seeing from the RCC hierarchy is the OUTRAGE. I still don't think they really "get it."

[solicitr]

What should the Pope have said, then?

[vison]

What should the Pope have said, then?

Something like "I'm sorry we did this to you" not "I'm sorry this happened to you".

If these were uncommon and isolated incidents it would be an entirely different matter. And it isn't just the RCC, there are other institutions using the same methods to avoid accepting responsibility for child abuse. In Canada the Indian residential schools were run by the Anglican and United Churches as well as by the RCC. It took years and a lot of fighting to get these things into the open.

[Padme]

I think the one thing the RCC could do is not handle it in house, come out and apologize for doing so and make it clear in no uncertain terms that any person in religious authority who commits or allows this type of thing to happen will be excommunicated. And all priest who sexual or other wise abuse children will be turned over to the law and prosucuted and will never be allowed into the priesthood again or allowed around children again.

I think that would help the RCC standing in the world a lot.

And it does happen in other churches, but most don't let the offenders around children again. I say most because there is one other out there than hides it pretty well too.

[solicitr]

"make it clear in no uncertain terms that any person in religious authority who commits or allows this type of thing to happen will be excommunicated."

That's not how excommunication works, or what it is there for.

And all priest who sexual or other wise abuse children will be turned over to the law and prosucuted

As in

Besides fully
implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse,
continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.
Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise.

?

[JewelSong]

solicitr, the bit you quoted is weak at best.

continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.

"Continue to cooperate?" But the whole problem arose because they DIDN'T cooperate. They handled things "in house." They told people NOT to go to the police. They assured victims that it would be "taken care of" and then put the priests right back in contact with children. They are only cooperating now because it has come to public knowledge...if it hadn't, they still would be hiding it.

Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise. (My bolding)

"Should do?" How about "MUST do?" Or something like, "we will require this kind of cooperation of all members of our religious order. Anyone found hiding or covering up these kinds of atrocities will be severely dealt with."

There was no punishment, no accountability and no condemnation.

And right now, from where I stand, there seems be to a whole lot of hand-wringing about how terrible it all is without honestly acknowledging that they, the RCC hierarchy F***ED UP.

[sauronsfinger]

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”) (Matthew 22:21).

Every single person suspected of committing a criminal act of molesting children by their superiors should have been turned over to the police department for proper investigation and prosecution. For any person in authority within the Church to have failed to do so was wrong and makes them complicit in a cover-up. When that suspected person continues to molest, it makes that person who failed to turn them in complicit in those crimes as well for helping facilitating them.

[vison]

Amen.

[Inanna]

Well said, sf.

[Túrin Turambar]

I tossed "alternate sexual outlet" on my post because to some men even women a tween (12-14) are not kids to them anymore, they are young adults and it is easier to prey on them than trying to get a hooker to come back to their place esp. if they are situated in a small town and everybody knows everybody. (I think the age range of the victims were between 6-14 years old.)

I cannot imagine, no matter how deprived I was of a 'sexual outlet', that I would want to have sex with a twelve-year-old boy or girl, let alone a six-year-old. I'm with vison - Priestly celibacy is absurd, but it isn't the cause of this problem.

"make it clear in no uncertain terms that any person in religious authority who commits or allows this type of thing to happen will be excommunicated."

That's not how excommunication works, or what it is there for.

From what I’ve seen of late, it seems to be reserved for people who are pro-choice on abortion.

I’ve always felt that the RCC seems to view sexual abuse as simply a personal failing by a priest, as a matter for the priest to work out with God. I’ve never been convinced that the organization now gives or has given the victims the attention that they deserve.

[JewelSong]

I’ve always felt that the RCC seems to view sexual abuse as simply a personal failing by a priest, as a matter for the priest to work out with God. I’ve never been convinced that the organization now gives or has given the victims the attention that they deserve.

I have also always felt this way. I think, in the past (and in some circles now) there was/is a kind of "looking the other way" when it came to priests and boys. It was seen as a kind of victimless crime (if it was seen as a crime at all.) Because at least the priests weren't having sex with WOMEN. The behavior wasn't exactly condoned, but it was tolerated, as long as it didn't get to be too much of a problem and too many parents didn't complain.

The idea that this was somehow damaging to the boys was not part of the equation at all.

ETA: This article from the NYT says it better:
Of the many heartbreaking details in the latest round of outrage over child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, one stands out as particularly emblematic: a tidy window into Church leaders’ mindsets; a bracing glimpse of what went wrong.

[sauronsfinger]

This column probably mirrors the feelings of many people who are Catholic but who can no longer see themselves as participating members of the faith.
It brings up many concerns that have been expressed in discussion of the type going on here.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 078888.ece

The concluding paragraph stands out

Religion — all religion, not just Catholicism — is supposed to be good for the soul, but everything I’ve written about here pollutes mine. You can’t take lessons in morality from people who disgust you.

[solicitr]

And a counter-view:

This Pope has done more than any other churchman to address the issue of priestly child abuse. He has stopped the practice of turning over priests accused of abuse to therapists, as we now know that therapy seldom helps a paedophile. He has fast-tracked the defrocking of priests found guilty of abuse. He has promoted co-operation, at a diocesan level, between church authorities responsible for canon law and police.

He can point to some real success in the protection of children: in England and Wales, for instance, child protection officers monitor every encounter between children and clergy.

[...]

Yet in this crisis everyone wants a scapegoat. Step forward Benedict XVI, the perfect scapegoat.

Pope Benedict XVI is part of the solution not the problem

[Lhaewin]

In Germany the RCC is organised in sectors and governed by a Cardinal. The Cardinal in the Cologne sector has announced a brochure with information for the victims for this week. He said in a press conference that justice should be done (whatever that means) and the victims should receive every support available.

Now I hope to get hold of this brochure.

[sauronsfinger]

Solicitr
I read the article you linked to. While there may indeed be some persons looking for a scapegoat and think the Pope is that person, I am not among them. The Pope is just a person in a job at the moment. I fault the institution itself. I fault the structure of the Church itself. I fault the top down paternalism that defines the Church. I fault the silly idea of celibacy and how its impact upon those who serve as priests. I fault the many Catholic bishops and cardinals who were in authority all those years during reported abuses who only made matters worse. There is some evidence coming to light that the current Pope was one of those. Time will tell.

It would be wrong to scapegoat any one person especially because it lets off the much larger group truly responsible for this abomination which took place in nation after nation, in diocese after diocese, and in parish after parish for several decades.

[solicitr]

Sure, SF- but then you're one of those ex-Catholics who really, really hate the Church.

[sauronsfinger]

from Solicitr

Sure, SF- but then you're one of those ex-Catholics who really, really hate the Church.

But that is not true Solicitr. I honestly do not "really really hate the Church". I think religion can be a very positive force in the lives of people. I think the Catholic church can serve a very positive purpose in the lives of people.

Having spent the last sixty years of my life as a Catholic, having gone through twelve years of Catholic school, having been an altar boy for most of that time, having been married to another Catholic by a priest in a Catholic church, and having my two kids baptized in a Catholic church, I do speak as a Catholic regardless if I attend mass on Sunday or regardless if I follow manmade rules and regulations.

I would love for the Catholic Church to be everything it could be. I truly appreciate and value the stand of the Church and Church officials on many things including issues of social justice. I truly appreciate the work of the Church and its officials and members to try to make their little corner of the world a better place for those who live in it.

I do not know why you would say that I really really hate the Church but you are mistaken. I have some very strong differences of opinion with certain Church positions, policies and activities. But that should never be equated with hating the Church.