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

[Primula Baggins]

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.

Yes, as I was rereading the thread I realized I hadn't put the thought correctly. What you say is what I intended to say. The victims have the right to pursue remedies by whatever means are available to them under the law; they have no obligation to settle for an internal investigation within the church, and they should not be asked or ordered to be silent.

[solicitr]

it should be left to the victims to decide whether to pursue remedies through the criminal justice system

I wouldn't even agree with that. The cases should be pursued through the criminal justice system, period.

[Lidless]

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.

I misread this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100403/ap_ ... h_abuse_56

Painful memories of the strained relations between the two religions were raised earlier in Benedict's papacy, when he favored a revival of the pre-Vatican Council version of the Tridentine Mass, which includes a prayer for the conversion of Jews.

[solicitr]

Painful memories of the strained relations between the two religions were raised earlier in Benedict's papacy, when he favored a revival of the pre-Vatican Council version of the Tridentine Mass, which includes a prayer for the conversion of Jews.

And even that is inaccurate- why can't reporters get anything right?

[Lhaewin]

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'.

For me this is a first progress because they seem to acknowledge the failings now as crimes by claiming forensic examinations of the abusers. That means that they (hopefully) won't protect perpetrators anymore and/or move them to new positions.

I guess that such a huge organisation (I like Lidless's comparison to a company) can't move as rapidly as it would be desirable. What has gone its way for centuries or rather milleniums, won't be changed in a blink.

I wish they would be clearer in their statements, but that's probably not going to happen so soon.

[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.

I misread this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100403/ap_ ... h_abuse_56

Painful memories of the strained relations between the two religions were raised earlier in Benedict's papacy, when he favored a revival of the pre-Vatican Council version of the Tridentine Mass, which includes a prayer for the conversion of Jews.

Thank you for the clarification. An understandable error. For your (and other's) interest, we had another rather intense discussion on that subject two years ago:

Catholics to Pray (Again) for Jews to be...Enlightened

It's worth reading.

[Alatar]

A good example of the anger on both sides of this issue:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/fro ... 07590.html

Among those allowed in were “Antoinette” and Rachel. After the offertory procession, they brought pairs of infants’ shoes to the altar “as a symbol” and recognition that some who had served behind altar rails abused children. Antoinette could go no further than the rails.

As they returned down the aisle, people in the pews said: “You ought to be ashamed of yourselves”; “It’s a disgrace”; “How dare ye!”; and “Shame on you”. Nervous anyhow, this upset both women deeply.

[JewelSong]

Whistle-blowers are never popular. When people are invested in an organization, they don't want to see the organization called out on its failings. Even if those failings are criminal. Even when the whistle-blowers are right.

People have a very hard time letting go of long-and-dearly-held beliefs - even when those beliefs are shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt - to be in error or wrongly ascribed.

[vison]

An early example of the cover-ups.

This case, in Cornwall, ON, was a sad example of the church trying to turn the tables and blame the whistle-blower and the victims. The cop involved was driven out of his job and out of town, with church officials and political figures interfering at every level. It was a disgrace and the police officer is still dealing with it, 18 years later.

[sauronsfinger]

NPR had this on this mornings show and it is pretty damaging to both the Church and the Pope.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =125803561

It offers proof that those in the Church cared about themselves and their institution at least as much (if not more i.m.o.) than they did about protecting children from pedophiles wearing a priests garb.

[yovargas]

I know this isn't exactly the topic but I heard this on the news recently:

A lawsuit alleging that the Boy Scouts covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse has caused a huge scandal that known abusers were allowed to remain in the Boy Scouts.

Confidential files from the Boy Scouts of America show that the organization knew of at least 1,000 suspected child molesters from 1965 to 1985 and tried to hush it up, an attorney in a sexual abuse lawsuit charges.

I've heard vison say a few times discussing the RCC scandals that she thinks pedophiles are simply attracted to places with kids. I wasn't sure I bought that but perhaps she's right.

[vison]

I know this isn't exactly the topic but I heard this on the news recently:

A lawsuit alleging that the Boy Scouts covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse has caused a huge scandal that known abusers were allowed to remain in the Boy Scouts.

Confidential files from the Boy Scouts of America show that the organization knew of at least 1,000 suspected child molesters from 1965 to 1985 and tried to hush it up, an attorney in a sexual abuse lawsuit charges.

I've heard vison say a few times discussing the RCC scandals that she thinks pedophiles are simply attracted to places with kids. I wasn't sure I bought that but perhaps she's right.

Well, when you stop to think about it, doesn't it make sense?

I referred to the Boy Scout scandal-in-waiting earlier, but maybe not on this thread.

[Primula Baggins]

Not defending the Boy Scouts if they've covered things up (not at all!) but by the time my sons were in the organization they had really strict rules that effectively prevented the possibility of this kind of thing. No adult was ever alone with kids, on campouts or hikes or at meetings or anywhere, unless it was his own kids and only his own. There were always at least two adults with any kid or group of kids. Campouts would be cancelled if there weren't enough adults to provide this coverage. And of course everyone had background checks, not that that solves much but it helps.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I know this isn't exactly the topic but I heard this on the news recently:

A lawsuit alleging that the Boy Scouts covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse has caused a huge scandal that known abusers were allowed to remain in the Boy Scouts.

Confidential files from the Boy Scouts of America show that the organization knew of at least 1,000 suspected child molesters from 1965 to 1985 and tried to hush it up, an attorney in a sexual abuse lawsuit charges.

I've heard vison say a few times discussing the RCC scandals that she thinks pedophiles are simply attracted to places with kids. I wasn't sure I bought that but perhaps she's right.

Well, when you stop to think about it, doesn't it make sense?

It does.

I had considered with this subject really belongs in this thread, and I think it probably does, because it does tend to shed light on the issues underlying the Catholic sexual abuse scandal.

[yovargas]

I had considered with this subject really belongs in this thread...

I was reluctant to post that here but I decided it can make the point that perhaps their isn't anything special RCC when it comes to this issue, as it has sometimes seemed. Which doesn't exonerate them, of course.

[Frelga]

I had considered with this subject really belongs in this thread...

I was reluctant to post that here but I decided it can make the point that perhaps their isn't anything special RCC when it comes to this issue, as it has sometimes seemed. Which doesn't exonerate them, of course.

I think we all know that, yov. The reason that there is so much attention focused on the RCC is twofold, IMO. One is the enormity of the violation of trust when the abuser is the person who is supposed to be one's link with God. As a non-Christian, let alone non-Catholic, I don't think I can even begin to comprehend the damage this would do to a young person, on top of all the harm done by abuse itself. I do know some people whose loved ones were, in their words, messed up for life.

The second, and more general, reason is the apathetic response we are seeing from the Church leadership. Had they made the sort of dramatic changes Prim describes Boy Scouts making, a lot of pressure would go away. It is the policy of "it's not us who's wrong, it's the bad people who blame us" that makes people go and .

[MithLuin]

Ummm...just for the record, Catholic churches (in the US, anyway) have the same rules Prim described for the boy scouts - always multiple adults present when there are kids at an event, background checks on employees (and sometimes even volunteers), etc. Now, what year such policies were implemented varies from place to place, but I'd be pretty shocked if anyone was ignoring this as late as, say, 2000. My sister was a youth minister for several years, and I've attended lots of church and school events - our diocese takes this very seriously and spells it out very clearly for everyone who works with youth in any capacity. Most (if not all) American dioceses are similar at this point in time. That's how things are now - obviously, it's not how things were. So, yes, changes have been made in response to the abuse. Do you think anyone wants it to keep happening?

I do know of one sex offender who had contact with one of my siblings growing up (nothing happened to my brother, AFAIK). It was a coach - he did things to boys in the locker room showers while the moms waited outside to pick up their sons. One day, a dad went in to see why it was taking his kid so long... So, yes, someone who wants to prey upon children will get into a position where he has opportunity to do so. It's up to organizations to prevent this if they can.

As far as I know, no one (not the scouts, not the churches, not the schools) had the types of rules Prim mentioned in the 1960s...it wasn't seen as necessary. You didn't even have to get permission slips signed for field trips back in the day. Parents were either more trusting or more naive, but based on what's on the news now...parents know that these dangers are real and happen in all communities. Times have changed, and hopefully these policies do prevent kids from being put into dangerous situations. Such policies only work if the person in charge of implementing them is above-board, of course; the abuser is already breaking the law and violating a child - an infraction of company policy isn't going to make any difference.

I am not suggesting that enabling someone to abuse children and scar them for life is ever a good thing. It's obviously a terrible thing. But if the Catholic leadership has seemed apathetic about this...they're not, and people aren't allowing them to ignore/forget about this. Changes are being made. That doesn't make the scandal go away, of course, but it is the right thing to do now (it's not like the past can be undone).

[Primula Baggins]

Maureen Dowd's op-ed in the New York Times this morning, about the scandal, women, and the Catholic church, is the sharpest and most powerful piece of writing I've read from her in years.

[vison]

I daresay that column will raise a few hackles. It's well written and expresses what I guess must be sincere feelings.

I can't really ever enter into this thing, really. The very heart of Catholicism is the worship of a woman who had boy child while never having had sex: the ideal woman. So inhumane and so far removed from the ordinary human experience that it can't be understood, only accepted blindly - or rejected.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, most Protestants believe she went on to have a lot of kids with Joseph (several of Jesus' brothers are mentioned in the Gospels). Far removed from human experience, yes, part of it, if you believe; but she was also a wife and a mother and had to watch her first-born child die.

As for whether Mary is the "heart of Catholicism," maybe in the emotional sense, for some. And I think a Catholic would say she is venerated, not worshiped; worship is for God.