Some of this came from the shortsighted and anti-theological advice of the lawyers and psychologists who dominated Catholic institutional thinking in that era. But much came simply from a desire to avoid bad publicity. And for the bishops’ failures, every Catholic is now paying ”” in a hundred years’ worth of donations lost to court judgments, in suspicious faith and in deep shame.
But that’s not enough for those who want to destroy the Catholic Church. And so the call has gone out to implicate the pope. European publications have offered rewards for documents that mention him. American newspapers ran as a front-page story the old story of a corrupt Wisconsin priest ”” only because, for a moment, it looked as though it might touch the pope. Benedict XVI has proved a weak administrator, devoting his pontificate mostly to writing theological encyclicals. But evidence of his involvement has been tangential in a few cases and non-existent in the others.
The aim of the media is to slur and smear and only the head of Benedict on a plate will placate them. Let nobody be under any illusion this is not so much about child abuse but bringing down the last hurdle opposing secularism which is the Catholic Church in general and the holy father in particular
What a goofy statement ” For a variety of reasons, however, the Catholic Church suffered through an astonishingly corrupt generation of priests, centered around 1975, with a percentage of sexual predators at least equal to the general population’s.”
And so…..I am supposed to conclude that it’s ok?
BTW, J. Bottom while you focus on Milwaukee, can you address Munich? What happened there?
[blockquote]2. Jackson wrote:
What a goofy statement †For a variety of reasons, however, the Catholic Church suffered through an astonishingly corrupt generation of priests, centered around 1975, with a percentage of sexual predators at least equal to the general population’s.â€
And so…..I am supposed to conclude that it’s ok?
BTW, J. Bottom while you focus on Milwaukee, can you address Munich? What happened there? [/blockquote]
I guess Jackson didn’t get the memo about the nihilism that crept into Euro-American culture about 1968, or so. J.B.’s statement wasn’t goofy so much as too short an explanation.
Jackson also refuses to acknowledge that J.B. obviously doesn’t think any of the abuse was ‘ok’. As for Munich, J. B. wasn’t reporting on that. Jackson should find out the information he apparently wants from another source.
I think rugbyplaying priest is onto something: the media would dearly love to bring down the Roman Catholic Church.
All of this apparent anger and concern about the secular forces trying to destroy “the Church” is interesting. Perhaps the “institution” does need to be purged; that’s not the “Church.” And perhaps the Good Lord wants us to see the difference.
#3 – I got the memo, but the point of my comment was missed. Whether “a percentage of sexual predators at least equal to the general population’s” or whether it was 1/2 or 8 times more does not matter at all. The point is that it happened to little children.
I know that J. Bottom doesn’t think it’s ok. The point is that J. Bottom profiled the NYTimes overreach on Milwaukee but didn’t speak about the Munich situation which is actually more disappointing.
I wouldn’t be concerned that the media can bring down the Catholic Church, if it could it would tell you more about God’s protection of his church then the NYTimes.
Teatime,
After reading a few of your comments, I am glad to read your comment number 5. Thank you for flying your patently anti-Catholic colors. It helps explain why you can’t be bothered to support your claims against the Roman Catholic Church with evidence or to think logically when doing so would mean treating the Roman Catholic Church justly.
Is this blog moderated, by the way? Does it countenance anti-Catholicism?
Just as a general point — I said to my fellow mainline Protestant clergy colleagues back 20 years ago “don’t enjoy laughing about Swaggart & Bakker too much, because they are impacting us and our churches, too.” Oh, no, they all cried, those fellows aren’t like us at all, and our parishoners and communities know we aren’t them.
That next year, with no national financial issues roiling the waters, the United Methodist Church saw a 3+% decrease in giving; many UMC, PCUSA, UCC, & DoC churches in my area saw the same or more, up to around 5%.
I fear that while I tend to hang out with a more evangelical crowd these days, they are repeating this mistake, and I say “beware your amusement with the plight of the Catholic hierarchy flailing to explain their incompetence and irresponsibility in reporting child sex abuse.” Oh, no, they respond, no one would confuse us with the Pope in Rome and all his pomps . . . and the current generation hears and feels even more affirmation for their lack of respect or consideration of any authority, temporal or spiritual, into their lives from the leadership of wiser, more senior figures.
“Every Catholic is now paying”? I’d say “every Christian,” or even “every person of an organized faith tradition” is now just a bit more under siege and marginalized by an increasingly hostile culture — and when we evangelical Christians get in our own digs on the Vatican and a Roman magisterium (“wrong in 1517, still wrong today!” a clergy acquaintance nearby said in his blog), we may be digging a pit that we’ll shortly be nudged into ourselves.
Hi Anne – Is your comment addressed to Teatime who wrote #4 or I who wrote #5? Thanks!
Wondering that myself, Jackson. My comment wasn’t remotely anti-Catholic. I happen to think that any religious institution bearing Christ’s name should be purged if there are abuses. And that includes ours, which I see going on vividly through our disagreements on social issues and the status of women. It needs to happen.
Oh, and that probably makes me a “post-denominational Christian.” Fine by me. The structure may be a vehicle, but the faith and body of believers is the Church, IMO.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
Teatime and Jackson — I was struck by the fact that Anne’s response to perceived critics of Rome was to call for the blog moderators to silence them. Critics of Rome had this problem in the 1500s as well — provoking the same call for silencing.
Thanks, Jackson.
Jon, Admittedly, I thought the same thing. It’s odd, especially since this is an Anglican blog and I don’t think that Canon Harmon fancies himself a pope, LOL!
Anti-Catholicism among the educated: rushing to judge the Roman Catholic Church w/o gathering and sifting the evidence or making unsubstantiated accusations. Believing Catholic theology to be erroneous is not anti-Catholic. That’s a matter of faith. Abusing logic and reason to attack the Catholic Church is anti-Catholic and defeats the purpose of having a discussion. This is why I asked if this blog is moderated. Otherwise, it’s a matter of trading prejudices, which I want no part of, so I would remove myself from further discussion. (Who said anything about silencing anyone? A moderator moderates; doesn’t silence.)
The apparently anti-Catholic comments are contained in a different thread. Assertions about the Catholic Church were made there that intelligent, just people would want to support with solid evidence – of which I find none, I’m afraid.
What I found illuminating here was your language, Teatime, of purging the “institution.†OK if you believe the hierarchy is not Biblical. That’s your faith, yes? OK too if you have solid evidence that certain members of the Catholic hierarchy have failed terribly and will continue to do so and must therefore be dismissed or resign. I’m with you on that. But to speak of an institutional purge w/o solid evidence and to do so after dismissing concerns some have about attempts to “destroy†the Church? Keep in mind also the connotations the word “purge†has with anarchist revolutionary movements and how this would fit your un-institutional (or anti-institutional?) theology. A vigorously anti-hierarchical bias explains attacking a hierarchy with insufficient evidence, doesn’t it?
Anne,
You’re an RC apologist. That’s great. But this is an Anglican blog. I have made clear that I’m not an institutionalist, Catholic OR Anglican. Period. How you can twist it around into anti-Catholicism is beyond me but the point, again, is that this is an Anglican blog. We are not RC apologists. If the Anglican moderators decide my comments should not remain on Canon Harmon’s blog, then they may remove them. I have no problem with that because it is, indeed, Canon Harmon’s blog. Not yours and not mine.
I’m sorry that disagreeing with your views equals attacking your church. Whatever. Again, I was clear about my views of institutional correction and included the fact that I think the Anglican institution is being corrected, too. I guess you missed that.
And, sorry, but I don’t need to present argumentation for your benefit for my own beliefs. We are operating under very different belief systems and lexicons, it seems. I don’t believe that Jesus would allow His Church to be destroyed but I do believe that the institution could be crippled. It’s NOT the same thing, IMO. The Church is not the institution. Every church structure and the Vatican could disappear tomorrow and the Church would not be destroyed. Who knows, it might even thrive better.
Again, these are my own musings. If you don’t like them or you disagree with them, that’s your right. But I don’t have to defend my personal beliefs to you.
Teatime,
I’m not an RC apologist. I’m an apologist for sound, just, and fair reasoning. I would be making the exact same arguments if the Anglican Church were being singled out and attacked, or the Baptists, or atheists, or . . .
That you disagree with my views (by which I assume you mean my beliefs) is not an attack against my church, and I’m happy to repeat that I respect your right to believe as you do. Making accusations (against anyone) that are illogical and based on insufficient evidence, however, is an attack on fruitful dialogue.
By the way, I’m glad you’ve changed your “purge” language to that of “correcting.” Perhaps I did read too much into your choice of words, and perhaps another aspect of fruitful dialogue would be learning to use language across theological divides. I would go along with saying that all churches, all ecclesial bodies are in constant need of reform.
Anne,
Teatime’s comments were not “anti-catholic”. He just happens to have a different view of what constitutes “the church” to you. So do millions of others who don’t accept the RCC’s claim to spiritual supremacy. That doesn’t mean they are “anti-catholic”, nor even that they are all badly disposed towards the RCC.
You will find much sympathy for the RCC in its present predicament among Anglicans and others, even though they consider RCC to be merely one among several earthly manifestations of God’s church – i.e. no better and no worse than the Anglicans, Orthodox, Baptists etc.
That won’t square with the views of many Roman Catholics, but you aren’t going to change anyone’s mind in an afternoon. My advice is to accept the gennuine sympathy that is there, for what it is.
MichaelA,
Your comment might have been posted before you could read my number 16. It doesn’t occur to me to question Teatime’s ecclesiological belief or to try to change that belief.
I am grateful for sympathy since this is a very difficult time for Roman Catholics and for all Christians. (There are non-Christians who don’t bother to distinguish between denominations and traditions. So the news reports about the Catholic Church are news reports about Christianity in their minds.) But what I am more interested in is basic justice. Teatime’s position has been consistently one of disregarding evidence (readily available online) that puts media reports on the Roman Catholic situation in a more constructive context – more constructive for actually addressing the problem of sex abuse in society as a whole.
Anne,
Good point, particularly about society as a whole.
I note that the German minister who has investigated some of the issues involving the pontiff’s brother is also extending her net to investigate issues concerning state orphanages in pre-unification East Germany. That might be a sign of a healthier broader view beginning to develop.
Thanks MichaelA.
The news about investigating state orphanages is encouraging. More and more, I wonder if those who grow up without being abused or nothing more serious than sexual harassment (though that’s serious enough) are a fortunate few.
Right, extend the conversation to “society,” please, because I am rather tired of apologists trying to divert attention from the priests by pointing the finger at teachers and others.
As an educator, I am well aware of the policies and programs we’ve long had in place to deal with the issue. Here where I live, you cannot set foot in a classroom until the background check is completed and the fingerprints are run. (Yes, we had to go to the police station to be fingerprinted.) We are required to attend in-services on appropriate conduct and what to do if a student hugs you (hugging is forbidden). I have known teachers who lost their certificates over allegations of inappropriate comments; one case involved a teacher from another country and I suspect it was a cultural misunderstanding. That didn’t matter — he was fired immediately. A teacher who is arrested for a DWI or some other non-sexual offense can and will be fired under the “moral turpitude” clause of our contracts.
I’m not complaining — this is as it needs to be, even though I recognize that some innocent people have lost their credentials and livelihoods in the stridency. Of course, there are ulterior motives, such as civil damages awarded, in some of the cases, too. But protecting young people and abuses of power are more important than making excuses.
I understand that powerful unions, particularly in the Northeast, representing the interests of the teachers can try to prevent real action and reform. So, restrict their power, as Texas and other states do. Those who truly care about the integrity of their profession won’t mind.
But notice that, in other professions, no one leaps to the defense of the accused teachers, social workers, medical professionals, etc. They’re presumed guilty by the public and the lawyers and journalists immediately investigate the leadership and institution. Policies and programs are enacted and house-cleaning is done. Immediately. No one wants to hear excuses.
Our entire “state school” system was recently investigated because of physical abuse by a half-dozen workers at one school. The state swept in, cleaned house, increased surprise inspections/visits at all hours of the day and night, and cooperated fully with law enforcement to lock up the perpetrators. This is what we expect. Families of residents at our local school wrote letters to the editor, fearful that the school would be closed down even though there were no abuses committed here. By all accounts, it’s a good facility but it had to be subjected to the same stringent measures to ensure safety. We understand that.
Other sections of society get this, and have gotten it for decades. Power over other human beings can corrupt. The church needs to get it, too. Pretending that they didn’t know or didn’t understand is false, as evidenced by the recommendations of the director of the Servants of the Paraclete. He told Pope Paul VI in 1963 that the abusive priests could NOT be rehabilitated fully and should NOT be returned to ministry. In fact, he developed plans to purchase an island in the Caribbean and send the abusive priests to live there!
I can’t copy over the web address because it’s a PDF file but the whole story and timeline are at Richard Sipe’s website.
http://www.richardsipe.com
They have known fully about the difficulties and the potential for scandal for over 50 years, according to the timeline, but did not take appropriate measures. So far, the unanswered question is WHY NOT? The excuse that they didn’t know or didn’t understand has been shot down by this correspondence between Fr. Fitzgerald and the Vatican.
Teatime,
If you assert that anyone on this thread has sought to “divert†attention from priests, you will please point us to the exact language that does so. Otherwise, I’m afraid your comment amounts to calumny.
I happen to agree with you that the question of why fuller action was not taken by the Catholic Church earlier on is an unanswered one. In fact, I wonder the same thing about many other churches and institutions in society.
Sigh, it’s a general observation based on a frequently trotted-out argument, Anne, so you can save your “calumny” charge. I’m pointing out the protocol in my own profession and state since teaching is a profession that is frequently singled out.
When I think about how much has changed in education from the time I was in elementary school in the late ’60s to early ’70s, it really is astonishing. Paddling was still permitted (at least, in Pennsylvania it was) and we had all seen the principal’s paddle. He was actually a very kind and soft-spoken man who waved the paddle around more than he actually used it but we knew it was within his legal right to use it. I don’t believe it was too long after that when corporal punishment was legally forbidden.
What astonished me about Fr. Sipes’ timeline is that it shows Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald began sounding the alarm in the late 1950s about the potential for abusive priests to create a church scandal. He alerted both John XXIII and Paul VI about it so the church should have been way ahead of society in this matter. When you overlap John XXIII’s call for more openness in the church via Vatican II, it just makes the question more poignant — WHY? They had been warned. Repeatedly. Fr. Fitzgerald told them the priests could not be rehabilitated sufficiently and must be laicized. Why were they not?
Teatime, where is the frequently trotted-out argument that causes you to observe, generally or specifically, that anyone on this thread has sought to “divert†attention from priests?
[i] This thread is becoming a personal conversation between 2 commenters. It might be wise to take this conversation off this thread and communicate individually. Should you wish this, email the elves at T19elves@yahoo.com [/i]
Indeed, Elves. Sorry! This will be my last response to her.
Anne, as I stated, I was not referring to anyone on this thread. The assertion about secular society is made commonly in the press and on other blogs. I’m sure you are aware of it and can find many examples in the media and church responses.
I’m done with this conversation.
The pit: [url=http://reformation.com/]reformation.com[/url]