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

[Lurker]

Second of all, the people who covered this up doesn't answer to me but their Creator.

But what about the people their actions hurt? It doesn't seem reasonable to ask them to wait for justice until the next world. Aren't the people who did the harm and those who covered it up answerable to them at all?

Yes, they deserve justice but sometimes life is unfair, if you believe there is a GOD out there let him be the judge. I'm sure there is a place in the afterlife for people like that.

[Lurker]

Second of all, the people who covered this up doesn't answer to me but their Creator.

But what about the people their actions hurt? It doesn't seem reasonable to ask them to wait for justice until the next world. Aren't the people who did the harm and those who covered it up answerable to them at all?

Modern society simply isn't compatible with Catholicism to anything like the same extent as it was, and revelations like this are hardly going to help. It seems that for every small step that the church takes forward, it slides back another hundred paces. The RCC is talking about repentence and other euphemisms for refusing to acknowledge their responsibility. The personal sufferings of the priesthood should not be the focus here...our concern should be for the current victims and potential victims in the future.

Are you a Catholic? If not, then you can't just blurt out that Catholicism is not compatible with modern society. I don't think the Catholic Church will just accept pro-choice, gay marriage etc... just to appease modern society and garner more parishoners. That's not right. The fact is, most mainstream religions are not compatible with modern society so it's not just the RCC.

"Potential victioms" in the future, you are already assuming that this is going to happen again. Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, priests and nuns have little or no contact with kids anymore. Gone are the days when a parish priest would play ice hockey with kids in the church backyard and teach HS, my dad always says.

[Primula Baggins]

"Sometimes life is unfair" doesn't cut it in this case, Lurker. The victims deserve justice, even if it's inconvenient for some in the church hierarchy. At least justice should be sought, even if it can't ultimately be found.

[nerdanel]

Second of all, the people who covered this up doesn't answer to me but their Creator.

But what about the people their actions hurt? It doesn't seem reasonable to ask them to wait for justice until the next world. Aren't the people who did the harm and those who covered it up answerable to them at all?

Yes, they deserve justice but sometimes life is unfair, if you believe there is a GOD out there let him be the judge. I'm sure there is a place in the afterlife for people like that.

And what about those of us who aren't sure there is a God/an afterlife and/or don't believe in God/an afterlife? I'm sure we count among our numbers some who are the sexual victims of the Catholic Church and its agents. After all, where those who hold themselves out as religious authorities are the same people committing and/or covering up egregiously immoral atrocities, their victims may not be inclined to give their religious teachings much credence. Those victims should not have to wait for an afterlife that may well never come in order to see justice. Those who commit felonies here on earth should meet with earthly justice. If there is additionally an afterlife over which a deity presides, the deity is free to deal with those people further if it chooses.

[Lhaewin]

Yes, they deserve justice but sometimes life is unfair, if you believe there is a GOD out there let him be the judge. I'm sure there is a place in the afterlife for people like that.

That would be the ultimate attempt of a consolation for the victims, if all efforts to do justice fail or the perpetrators have already died. You could apply this reasoning to each crime and I can't imagine anyone here would let a murderer go free because there might be a trial in Heaven - later.

And what about those of us who aren't sure there is a God/an afterlife and/or don't believe in God/an afterlife? I'm sure we count among our numbers some who are the sexual victims of the Catholic Church and its agents. After all, where those who hold themselves out as religious authorities are the same people committing and/or covering up egregiously immoral atrocities, their victims may not be inclined to give their religious teachings much credence. Those victims should not have to wait for an afterlife that may well never come in order to see justice. Those who commit felonies here on earth should meet with earthly justice. If there is additionally an afterlife over which a deity presides, the deity is free to deal with those people further if it chooses.

Agreed, as long as earthly justice can get hold of them, neither the RCC nor society can put justice off until the problem might or might not be dealt with in the Last Judgement.

[JewelSong]

, if you believe there is a GOD out there let him be the judge. I'm sure there is a place in the afterlife for people like that.

Lurker, I am wondering if you would react this way if it was one of your children who had been raped?

Somehow, I doubt it.

The most insidious part of the continued cover-ups, to me as a parent, was that the parents were told that the church would "take care" of the abusers. And because most of these parents had been brought up to revere and respect the church authorities (above all else) they believed this. They did not go to the police (and in many cases, they were specifically instructed NOT to!) They trusted the church...only to be betrayed and cast aside and their children's suffering treated like collateral damage.

The church, as an organization, acted shamefully. And I do not see that anything has changed in the organizational mind-set. As I said before, the Pope is responding now because the evidence and public outrage has forced him to. The RCC's response is reactive, not proactive. And still, behind every statement, every apology, every reaction is the idea that somehow the RCC itself is under siege, a victim of a media feeding frenzy. A witch hunt.

A "witch hunt" implies that those being accused are innocent. In this case, new cases are being brought to light every single day. This was a global, endemic cover-up.

[solicitr]

Maureen Dowd continues the pile-on

Now we learn the sickening news that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, nicknamed “God’s Rottweiler” when he was the church’s enforcer on matters of faith and sin, ignored repeated warnings and looked away in the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a Wisconsin priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys.

This, of course, is a complete falsehood.

Folks, quite apart from the ACTUAL scandal (and yes, the creeps and their protecters need a new residence, the Graybar Hotel)- but we are most certainly seeing a press witchhunt directed at blackening Benedict, personally, whom the Left has always, always, always hated.

[sauronsfinger]

For what it is worth Solicitr, I had read the Dowd column and felt it was rather superficial and flip. I truly do not know any person who looks to Dowd for advice on religion. She is more like Rush Limbaugh in that she first and foremost is trying to entertain and I think the wiser readers of her column know that.

Interesting that Dowd is not part of some Klan plot to destroy the Catholic Church but is herself a Catholic who was educated in Catholic schools. As I said before, much of the anger against this entire issue comes from people who are Catholic and who may have an entire personal history that is intertwined with the other issues of crimes against children. It becomes difficult, if not near impossible, to separate the personal injuries from the public issues of the day when the Church is the center of much of it.

Your statement about "always always always hated" needs some evidence to back it up.

[Primula Baggins]

solicitr, that's out of line. "The Left" includes a wide range of opinion and wildly varying levels of knowledge about religious affairs. I would guess that most had never heard of Cardinal Ratzinger before his elevation to the papacy, and that fewer still would care. It's the abuse that has drawn people's attention, not the church politics.

[solicitr]

Sorry: notwithstanding her education, the adult Dowd describes herself variously as a "lapsed Catholic," "ex-Catholic" and "agnostic."

----------------

OK, Prim, let's put it differently: there is a segment of the Left, which pays attention to Church affairs (including more than a few Leftist Catholics) who were absolutely horrified that the traditionalist conservative Ratzinger was elected Pope; he had been a target for years before that, often occupying the same role in the caricature-version of the Vatican that Dick Cheney did in the caricature-version of the Bush administration, the Bad Guy responsible for John Paul's 'backwards' views. I get 12,000 Google hits for Ratzinger "Grand Inquisitor."

This campaign to smear Benedict, personally, with the abuse scandal has been going on for some time. A while back the German press went nuts over a story of an abusive priest ate the choir once headed by the Pope's brother- except it turned out not to have been at the same time.

The problem, of course, is that many on the Left (and if the NYT doesn't represent the 'mainstream' Left, then who does?) regard conservatives as fundamentally evil, and are thus predisposed to believe any vile accusation against us.

[JewelSong]

I haven't "always" hated Ratzinger/Benedict, but I do think he has set ecumenism back a good 50 years. I do not think he has been good for the RCC in the grand scheme of things, nor has he done much to enlighten or inspire those of us who are not Roman Catholic, but some other branch of Christianity or other faith. I think, in matters of religious faith, it would behoove us all, as citizens of the planet, to come together to celebrate our commonalities and basic humanity. This Pope has (IMHO) done his level bast to highlight the differences and to keep the RCC "apart."

much of the anger against this entire issue comes from people who are Catholic

Or who WERE Catholic...I think the people who feel the most betrayed and the most anger are those who WERE good and faithful and compliant Catholics for much of their lives and now feel as though they have been duped for years.

[solicitr]

but I do think he has set ecumenism back a good 50 years.

How?

[sauronsfinger]

You raise a good point Jewelsong. Many of the people I know that were born and raised Catholic, many who went to Catholic schools and were married in the Church, had their kids baptized in the church, but who no longer go still consider themselves as Catholic. To say that they WERE Catholic or to call them former or ex Catholics is not something that they would place upon themselves.

They still consider themselves as a Catholic even though they have serious issues with the Church and no longer follow all the rules and regulations.

this is an interesting thought

I think the people who feel the most betrayed and the most anger are those who WERE good and faithful and compliant Catholics for much of their lives and now feel as though they have been duped for years.

Speaking only for myself, I do not feel duped or any other form of being misled or used. I have wonderful memories of my years in Catholic school and church activities especially those associated with my being an altar boy and Holy Week activities. I feel very angry at Church officials for what they have done with the priests and this whole issue of criminal behavior with children. I cannot excuse it and will not excuse it.

But I do not feel duped or misled. Many - if not most - and possible all of the priests and nuns who I came in contact with were good people who performed a very difficult and demanding job and they did it out of a deep vocation and love of both God and service to the community. The fact that otherwise good people would ignore criminal activity right under their nose because of the greater imperative to preserve the all important institution and its status, that is what bothers me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The problem, of course, is that many on the Left (and if the NYT doesn't represent the 'mainstream' Left, then who does?) regard conservatives as fundamentally evil, and are thus predisposed to believe any vile accusation against us.

I think that, sadly, there is a certain amount of truth to this statement. However, this is not the place to discuss the issue generally. Let's please try to keep the thread focused on issues directly related to the Pope's apology and to what extent it was or was not sufficient.

[nerdanel]

The problem, of course, is that many on the Left (and if the NYT doesn't represent the 'mainstream' Left, then who does?) regard conservatives as fundamentally evil, and are thus predisposed to believe any vile accusation against us.

I think that, sadly, there is a certain amount of truth to this statement. However, this is not the place to discuss the issue generally. Let's please try to keep the thread focused on issues directly related to the Pope's apology and to what extent it was or was not sufficient.

I also think there is a certain amount of truth to this statement, but that it might be universalized -- in a way that is relevant to this thread. I think it is fair to say that most people who pay attention to religious affairs and world events are likely to have a particular reaction to scandals involving any particular religion, religious organization, or state with religious ties. Each participant might find it useful to examine their own view of the Catholic Church (for instance) - I think that some of us are predisposed to find accusations of sexual scandal within the Church very plausible as stated and condemnable. Others of us are predisposed to find such accusations overstated - and the accusations themselves as or more condemnable than the underlying conduct, in view of the motives of the accusers or those who repeat the accusations. Still others may be neutral and have absolutely no reaction based on their view of the Church itself - but the neutral number, on this board and in the world, is not 100%.

The same exercise might be repeated for each discussion. Many people throughout the world probably are predisposed to be sympathetic or hostile each time they hear that a Palestinian in the occupied territories has committed an act of violence against Israelis, or that the Israeli Army has taken violent action within the occupied territories. Ditto for reports of Islamic-identified terrorists committing violence, particularly in the West. Virtually everyone has a preexisting lens that shapes their view of these news reports. The challenge in each situation, including this one, is to be aware of one's lens and how it affects one's ability to react honestly to the underlying facts of the case.

That others may have a lens that is abhorrent to you, however, does not vitiate the underlying facts.

E.g. - I don't want to get the discussion off-track here, but I want to give an example through my worldview. I feel a sincere emotional attachment to Israel, and I will always champion the right of the Jewish state to exist, as a Jewish state, with at least shared control of Jerusalem as its capital. Although my feelings on this topic are more emotional than logical, I have held this position for most of my life and am not looking to revisit it. So it is difficult for me when Israel takes particular action against the Palestinians that I cannot support, for instance if its behavior implicates human rights issues. Many, many people who condemn such Israeli behavior (on the Left, actually) have a mindset towards Israel that I cannot support. Some are anti-Semitic, some question the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Holy Land, some question the need for a Jewish state at all, some do not acknowledge any Israeli right of self-defense. Many are solicitous only of Palestinian human rights, and do not express any concern for Israeli rights to be safe and secure; they may view Israel as an unmitigated aggressor, a viewpoint that I can acknowledge but do not share. But whatever their viewpoints, my concern is with Israel's underlying conduct, and whether I believe it is moral and defensible or not. If Israel does something that I believe is unjustifiable, I cannot switch to defending that conduct on the grounds that the people who are most loudly condemning it "hate Israel and don't acknowledge the right of the Jewish state to exist." It may be true that they do, but that's entirely collateral to the underlying Israeli conduct at issue. I think the relevance of the analogy I'm trying to draw is probably pretty clear without my spelling it out explicitly.

[solicitr]

Well, said, Nel. It is quite true that nearly all of us a) tend to believe what we want to believe, if we can possibly help it, and b) shore up that stance by shooting the messenger, to avoid giving credence to the message.

However, one cannot thereby discount the existence of concerted efforts to distort and even fabricate messages, and in that discussion the motives of the messengers become an entirely valid inquiry- especially in those cases where the organized messengers have a track record not merely of bias-running-to-hatred, but a "pattern and practice of wilful misrepresentation."

[vison]

Is today not the day that Jesus was crucified? Is not this the second most holy day in the Christian calendar?

I find it odd, and sad, and hard to understand, how the message that Jesus supposedly preached has been completely and utterly lost in the discussion of crimes committed by Catholic clerics. Lalaith and sf both referred to this above: Lalaith by saying it was in large part a spiritual matter, and sf quoting Jesus' words about children.

I find it equally odd, sad, and hard to understand, that his message has been adopted as "conservative". When I read the gospels, Jesus does not "sound" like a "conservative" to me. He sounds far more left-wing than any modern Catholic I know.

What is has come to is that a very large and powerful institution is rightfully being held to account for the criminal acts committed by some of its operatives. That's the issue here. Not sin, not repentance, not fear of God's wrath or hope of God's forgiveness. It's "circle the wagons" and "cya".

How I wish I thought Jesus would step in, in person. I have a strong suspicion he would have some sharp words to say.

[solicitr]

I find it equally odd, sad, and hard to understand, that his message has been adopted as "conservative". When I read the gospels, Jesus does not "sound" like a "conservative" to me. He sounds far more left-wing than any modern Catholic I know.

Then you are really rather proving my point. You have a vision of 'conservatism' which, I would venture, consists of callousness and greed, and a view of 'Christian charity' which involves subcontracting it to Caesar.

Hint: charity is *voluntary* or it don't count. You can't get away with "Lord, when you were hungry I cast my vote to make somebody else feed you." Nowhere does Our Lord instruct us to "Go, take all that they neighbour hath, and give it to the poor."

[Primula Baggins]

This isn't going to become a political discussion. We are veering off topic.

[nerdanel]

Just as a thought experiment – I wonder if anyone’s perspective on this discussion would shift if the organization accused of a cover-up of child sexual abuse were known as the International Association of Atheists. In particular, I wonder what the public reaction of the Catholic Church, its members, and other defenders would be if the hypothetical IAA was accused of the behaviors in question. I wonder if they:

- Would make Lurker’s response, “Yes, they deserve justice but sometimes life is unfair, if you believe there is a GOD out there let him be the judge. I'm sure there is a place in the afterlife for people like that.” – and leave the atheist group be, for God to sort out in the afterlife.

- Would place blame on the organization’s secular/anti-religious character, whether or not that was really a factor in encouraging immoral behavior.

- Would be sympathetic to the argument that the people speaking out against the IAA (such as themselves) really just had it in for atheists and were looking for any excuse to discredit atheists. After all, the real issue would not be child sexual abuse, but anti-atheist bigotry.

- Would agree that the anti-atheist bigotry was clear, based on the fact that plenty of children are molested in decentralized schools [edited to change "churches," a typo, to "schools"] and day-care centers, so it is not reasonable for the public to focus on a centralized organization that committed, then covered up, such acts.

- Would find it defensible if the atheists handled the sexual abuse cases through their internal procedures, rather than reporting to public authorities.

- Where atheist leaders of the organization refused to cooperate with public authorities, would be sympathetic to the argument that the public authorities simply hadn’t contacted the right leaders of the organization (and indeed, had contacted the wrong leaders as a political stunt, to shame the IAA).

- Would find sufficient a statement from the leaders of the IAA that they are sorry that the victims were hurt, and that they (the leaders) share in the victims' hurt and outrage.