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

[Lurker]

, 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.

Jewel,
Of course, I want justice but sometimes it doesn't come easy. It will make you insane if you start brooding over the matter over and over again how can I get back to this person/s who did this. That's why I said that.

So does this mean I should not trust the police? I don't know what's going on, why they can't arrest them. Same here, we don't know what is really happening, why was there a cover - up, who are really involved, why these people were not arrested? So do I leave the Church because they betrayed me and my faith?

That's why as Catholics we are often told to pray for our spiritual leaders to enlighten them since they are humans, too, and sometimes they forget that they are supposed to be "good examples of the the faith" instead of power tripping for political gain inside the administration of the Church. There will always be those among us who will betray the Church.

posted edited

[Primula Baggins]

Lurker, that break-in obviously had a big effect on you.

Now, try to imagine how you would feel and how you would be living if it was your body that had been broken in on.

When you were helpless—and by someone you were told you ought to trust.

I think you need to leave it to the victims to determine what kind of justice is appropriate.

[Lurker]

I know. I didn't say that the victims just let God decide their fate. Yes, I want justice for them like any other person in this thread or the whole planet.

I'm just upset because people twisted my words to say that I don't care and let God take care of it. I said, I am not leaving the Church just because of the "cover up" and if ever this is not resolved in a timely manner I am sure there is a place for those people who were part of the cover up/crimes in the afterlife. They have to face their Creator somehow.

post edited

[Lhaewin]

Lurker, that's horrible. I can't even imagine how you must have felt and still feel today.

Meanwhile things are moving in Germany. In today's newspaper there are quotes from newly inserted prayers in Catholic churches on for Good Friday, while there had been a discussion beforehand, if the RCC shall just happily celebrate Easter as always and ignore what's going on or not.

So, it was decided that ignoring the abuse scandal would make the Easter service 2010 a "dead ritual".

The gist of the additions is that "we shall pray for the victims and those who failed in a massive way by becoming guilty of abusing young people who were in their care". Above all there's an identification of the victims with Jesus, who "in his suffering became a victim of injustice and violence".

This exceeds everything we've heard in Germany so far because now the perpetrators are being equated with Jesus Christ's executioners.

Furthermore the authorised appointee for the abuse scandal, Bishop Ackerman, demands to change the guidelines of the (German) RCC so that all clerical perpetrators will have to be subjected to a forensic examination, no matter if the crime is time-barred or not.

[Lidless]

The pope also read the pre-1960s mass which calls on Jews to convert...

If I were to look at this one case, there are several possibilities:

Ratzinger knew about it and failed
Ratzinger was in charge of a department that failed
Ratzinger was in charge of a department that didn't know

Either way, that's when you either resign or get kicked out. There is no way you should become CEO.

Of course, when I say 'failed' I mean failed to do the right thing. One presumes however that part (or most) of his remit was to minimise PR damage - a short-sighted policy which, at the time, he succeeded in.

Apologies for talking about the Catholic Church as a company, but *any* organised religion I see as a man-made organisation with the same internal and external workings and internal and external power struggles between people, departments and competitors as any listed company - the only difference being the type of prophets they make.

[vison]

. . . . 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).

I don't remember much about how this pope was elected, what other candidates there were, etc. But for the sake of argument, what if another man had been chosen? What if the new pope had been "to the left" of Ratzinger? What if he had undertaken the kinds of massive reforms some Catholics want to see? What if, instead of defrocking those priests, he had welcomed their ideas? What if he had said, "no more requirement for celibacy", what if he had said, "we will welcome women priests", what if he had said, "we realize that families must be limited and we alter our stance on birth control"? What if, as he made these announcements, he also said "after much prayer we have come to these conclusions believing that they will advance God's work among man"?

I remember the excitement among young Catholics (and a lot of non-Catholics) over John XXIII and some of the things he brought about. And I remember the bitterness among some older Catholics about no longer having the Latin mass, etc.

An institution as wealthy and powerful as the RCC looks, to this outsider, like any other big institution. And over the child abuse mess, it has seemed, IMO, to react to trouble like all big institutions do: circle the wagons and deny responsibility.

"Accepting responsiblity" means more than saying, "I'm sorry this happened to you".

[solicitr]

The pope also read the pre-1960s mass which calls on Jews to convert...

Really? Source? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I would be *amazed* if the old Tridentine had been trotted out. Far more likely the Mass of 1970 was said in Latin (as it usually is in the Vatican) and some reporter got it wrong.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The pope also read the pre-1960s mass which calls on Jews to convert...

I can't find any indication anywhere that that is true. If you are going to make provocative statements like that in an already tense thread, you darn well better be able to back it up.

[solicitr]

Ratzinger knew about it and failed
Ratzinger was in charge of a department that failed
Ratzinger was in charge of a department that didn't know

You're overlooking Option 4, the one which applies:

Ratzinger headed a department which had nothing to do with it.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which Ratzinger was Prefect from 1981 until his election as Pope, is concerned with theology, not with the disciplining of priests (except in the very rare case of a heresy charge or other specifically religious offenses.).

Priestly wrongdoing is primarily the responsibility of the diocesan bishops. Disciplinary proceedings can be appealed to Rome; but those appeals are handled by the Rota, and ultimately the Supreme Tribunal.

The specific case of Fr Murphy fell under the CDF's jurisdiction because it was alleged (in 1996) that Murphy had solicited children in the confessional; and a violation of the sanctity of the confessional is a religious crime under canon law.

[Cerin]

The gist of the additions is that "we shall pray for the victims and those who failed in a massive way by becoming guilty of abusing young people who were in their care". Above all there's an identification of the victims with Jesus, who "in his suffering became a victim of injustice and violence".

This shows the same deficiency of the other official statements. If only they would add, 'those who failed in a massive way . . . and of protecting those they knew were abusing children and transferring them to new positions where they could continue their abuse'.

[solicitr]

I would suggest that "becoming guilty of abusing young people who were in their care" includes those bishops and others who acted as enablers and accessories. A bishop is supposed to be the 'shepherd of his flock,' and those child victims were in their (unworthy) care.

[solicitr]

What if, instead of defrocking those priests, he had welcomed their ideas?

Welcome the ideas of priests who preach violent Marxist revolution?
Not. Gonna. Happen.

Married clergy is a possibility. Women priests? Not so likely; it would require a change in dogma, which is (theoretically) unchangeable. Gay marriage? Support for abortion? Not bloody likely.

[vison]

What if, instead of defrocking those priests, he had welcomed their ideas?

Welcome the ideas of priests who preach violent Marxist revolution?
Not. Gonna. Happen.

Married clergy is a possibility. Women priests? Not so likely; it would require a change in dogma, which is (theoretically) unchangeable. Gay marriage? Support for abortion? Not bloody likely.

I didn't say it was "likely". I asked what would happen. Speculation, in other words.

Would there be a great exodus of outraged Catholics?

I suspect not.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would suggest that "becoming guilty of abusing young people who were in their care" includes those bishops and others who acted as enablers and accessories. A bishop is supposed to be the 'shepherd of his flock,' and those child victims were in their (unworthy) care.

But if they explicitly said that, there would be any room to doubt. As it stands. I don't know why they won't just unambiguously say it.

[solicitr]

vison, you seem to misunderstand the fundamental nature of Catholicism: doctrine isn't subject to change. It's not a question of getting in tune with popular opinion, or 'welcoming new ideas' where it comes to matters of faith and morals.

Sure, the outward trappings can and do change, like Mass in the vernacular and nuns without habits, and the Church long, long ago backed off any claim to authority in areas like science; but if you think the church is going to change its definition of human life or embrace Marxism, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

Whether or not there is an 'exodus of enraged Catholics' simply doesn't figure: the Faith is the Faith, and if some 'Catholics' prefer a church with lesbian bishops, well, they're free to go join one.


There certainly was an exodus, if not a great one, of outraged Catholics after the purely *external* reforms of Vatican II- the St Pius X Society and Mel Gibson's schismatics etc. What would happen if the Church were suddenly to assert that the Faith itself was subject to modification whenever market research and focus groups suggested the product would sell better?

[vison]

Sure.

But I have a pretty strong idea that if Jesus was to come back to Earth today he wouldn't recognize the RCC as having much to do with what he is said to have taught. I have an idea he would throw up his hands and say something like, "You guys got it all wrong!" He wouldn't say that only to the RCC, of course, any version of Christianity I've ever heard of has departed wildly from the simple, brief messages of that Jew who supposedly walked about in the Middle East 2,000 or so years ago.

Whatever Jesus might or might not think about the wealth, power, gilt and purple trappings of the RCC, he would surely be appalled to hear that any man professing to follow his teachings would harm a child. I suspect that he would do some table tossing and shouting out in anger.

It doesn't matter to me, personally, of course. But I don't like to see people suffer, especially if I see people suffering from the dictates of a religion, whether it be Christianity or Islam or any other. People are, I suppose, free to leave their religion, but that's easier said than done.

[JewelSong]

? So do I leave the Church because they betrayed me and my faith?

Yes. I would. Because it would be obvious (to me) that the "church" I thought I believed in was nothing of the sort. I might still adhere to the principles and ideas of the church, but the organization (to ME) would have proved itself false.

My faith would remain. My membership in the organization would be over.

Edit to fix quote.

[nerdanel]

Lidless - I also can't find a source reporting that the Pope said the Tridentine prayer.

Speaking of which, soli - you write "vison, you seem to misunderstand the fundamental nature of Catholicism: doctrine isn't subject to change." I don't fully understand what constitutes doctrine and what does not. For instance, didn't the Church revise its long-standing teaching that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus in the 20th century? Was that considered doctrine, or some lesser form of malleable teaching?

Also, what makes the teaching against married (and presumably celibate) priests more susceptible to change than the teaching against female priests? Again, when the Church changed its longstanding practice against female altar servers, was that a teaching of a lesser magnitude than doctrine that they were free to revise?

As an outsider (or a once-insider), I have often wondered whether the Church's view of the fixed-nature of doctrine is something like our secular notion of stare decisis, which as you know provides that our legal decisions are final/precedential/binding ... unless they are not. The courts retain the ability to redecide those issues that have already been decided, usually where our "evolving standards of decency" reveal the errors of particular earlier decisions. It seems as though the Church might have a similar approach, but I am not sure.

vison - as for your hypotheticals, I think that there probably would be an exodus of outraged Catholics, just a different subset thereof. See, e.g., the Anglican schism (due to doctrinal shifts of the same sort you're suggesting).

Prim - I understand where you're coming from, but this:

I think you need to leave it to the victims to determine what kind of justice is appropriate.

... seems as though it could make for rather scary consequences. I'm wondering if you meant that it should be left to the victims to decide whether to pursue remedies through the criminal justice system.

[solicitr]

Whatever Jesus might or might not think about the wealth, power, gilt and purple trappings of the RCC, he would surely be appalled to hear that any man professing to follow his teachings would harm a child.

I don't think you're seriously trying to imply that the Church teaches that child molestation is good???????

And I venture to say that Jesus was/is completely aware that a profession of faith is no prophylactic against mortal sin. Was not one of His favorite terms for the Pharisees 'hypocrites?' No, the boundlessness of human depravity grieves Him, but hardly surprises Him.

But I have a pretty strong idea that if Jesus was to come back to Earth today he wouldn't recognize the RCC as having much to do with what he is said to have taught. I have an idea he would throw up his hands and say something like, "You guys got it all wrong!"

You're entitled to your opinion. Centuries of Catholic theologians would, of course, disagree.

[solicitr]

As an outsider (or a once-insider), I have often wondered whether the Church's view of the fixed-nature of doctrine is something like our secular notion of stare decisis, which as you know provides that our legal decisions are final/precedential/binding ... unless they are not.

No, they're more like the Constitution, except without the Article V amendment provisions. At least when it comes to core doctrine. There are then the penumbral areas which are more like Court precedent, like the blessing of 'mixed marriages.' I hasten however to point out that with regard to "Jewish guilt", that was never a matter even of penumbral doctrine, although for centuries many, many many clergy and laity talked about it as if it was. Shamefully, it took the Holocaust for the Church to put its foot down and denounce antisemitism as a grave sin.

The question of clerical celibacy isn't a matter of doctrine at all: it's a disciplinary regulation, part of the Employee Handbook like wearing black with a dog-collar. Priests were free to marry for nearly a thousand years, and in the Orthodox church still are (the RCC recognizes Orthodox ordinations). The RCC under certain circumstances accepts "transfers" of married Anglican priests. Heck, St Peter himself, the first Pope, had a wife!