"Many U.S. Catholics Question Their Membership Amid Scandal"

[metis]

But did this actually change canon law?

I don't know.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Thirdly, the fake news media is behaving homophonic, by turning on the Catholic Church, since the Church turned out to be one of the first defenders of homosexuality in the modern era. Now it is taboo to defend gays in the church.

Um...what? I can't make heads or tails of that.

 

[SomeRandom]

Actually the catholic youth groups today are safer than the boy scouts. All of the scandals in the US have been in the past and the Catholic church has made changes. All catholic youth instructor's in my district go through a yearly police background check and go through what I would call sensitivity training. I'm in the district of Metuchen in NJ and I'm told most districts in the church are similar in NJ. I applied to be an CCD instructor and got fed up with all the rules and regulations and paperwork, so never taught a class. For the boy scouts I filled out one form the first year with no finger prints, no training and was a club leader for 3 years until my son left.

Well I’m Australian, so whilst we already have stringent demands for a Blue Card (qualification for working with children, the disabled and elderly) I’m not so sure that’s true for us. Maybe if they implement all the recommendations the Royal Commision had for them. So I’m prone to being suspicious, at least for the time being.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are three thing one needs to keep in mind. Firstly, the abuse has been amplified, using the news template, which blows things out of proportion to help sell news and gain market share. The analogy is if a jet airliner crashes the media will make the impression every jet is about to fall out of the sky.

The big story in Australia at the moment is that Cardinal Pell...head of the Catholic Church here, and a high ranking Catholic internationally...has just been convicted and gaoled for child abuse.
You can sell that as the media painting stories, but it's a big story. Also, Catholics are extremely upset by his behaviour and the failings of the Church.

Secondly, the vast majority of the abuse was homosexual in nature, even though news will not frame it this way. If was mostly connected to gay behavior; male/male, with very little, in proportion, in terms of lesbian or heterosexual abuse.

Umm...so?

Thirdly, the fake news media is behaving homophonic, by turning on the Catholic Church, since the Church turned out to be one of the first defenders of homosexuality in the modern era. Now it is taboo to defend gays in the church.

That is an amazingly self-serving twist on reality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well I’m Australian, so whilst we already have stringent demands for a Blue Card (qualification for working with children, the disabled and elderly) I’m not so sure that’s true for us. Maybe if they implement all the recommendations the Royal Commision had for them. So I’m prone to being suspicious, at least for the time being.

Yup...I needed a volunteer card to work with children (b-ball coach). It's like a driver's licence, and is free if related to volunteer work.

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually, it's showing two lines going down on a unitless, unlabelled scale.

Let me rephrase: what's the dependent variable in the graph?

For Protestants, you have 43 in 1960. 43 of what? Adherents who attend services regularly? Who say that they're proud of their religion? Who beep their horn when they pass a sign saying "honk if you love your church?"

Correct. My thoughts exactly when I found the graph. It was the one which
went back the furthest. It's based on some "average" point, but I didn't look
up the site to see "average what?"
It's there to show relative decline. I had a 1900 to 2000 graph but can't find
it now. It shows a long, steady decline in American church attendance.
Kicking off quite strongly during the WWI years.
At some point radicals will begin burning churches down. We have had a
bit of this where I live, already.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don’t blame any Catholic for still going to Church. But if I were a Catholic parent, I probably wouldn’t go near Catholic run youth groups for a while.

It's a lot deeper than it appears. Back in the 1950's and 1960's there was a
lot of institutional child abuse going on. But people were concerned for the
institutions. Now we are concerned for the kids but not the institutions - it's
not a win win situation as we depend upon those institutions to prevent
other abuse. And parents today would be have been seen as morally bad
to the post WWII generation, as bad to them as priests are to us today.

In fact, with the burgeoning porn industry, and its porn stars getting younger
all the time, plus the growing sexualization of children, we could all wind up
as dirty priests ourselves.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's a lot deeper than it appears. Back in the 1950's and 1960's there was a
lot of institutional child abuse going on. But people were concerned for the
institutions. Now we are concerned for the kids but not the institutions - it's
not a win win situation as we depend upon those institutions to prevent
other abuse. And parents today would be have been seen as morally bad
to the post WWII generation, as bad to them as priests are to us today.
.

True.

In fact, with the burgeoning porn industry, and its porn stars getting younger
all the time, plus the growing sexualization of children, we could all wind up
as dirty priests ourselves.

I wouldn’t go that far.
I mean in the last century we have actually raised the legal age of consent and even marriage. Childhood is a modern social construct. (Not at all to say children shouldn’t be protected of course.)
But we are getting more and more sophisticated with our childhood rearing techniques.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Secondly, the vast majority of the abuse was homosexual in nature, even though news will not frame it this way. If was mostly connected to gay behavior; male/male, with very little, in proportion, in terms of lesbian or heterosexual abuse.

Why does this matter in the slightest? Is it somehow "better" that little boys were molested than little girls? In trying to discern your point here I am coming up with nothing. What does this have to do with anything?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And parents today would be have been seen as morally bad to the post WWII generation, as bad to them as priests are to us today.

And why is this? Because the post WWII generation would have wanted the institutions protected over the kids? And this is what? More moral? No... it just means those people had their priorities out of whack. An organization known to harbor and protect child molesters should burn. Period. I don't care what other good it is doing. Let it be replaced by something that can do good and not rape/molest kids. Seriously. Your point here is garbage. Trash. Our "aid" organizations are spread thin because there are so damn many of them. Take away one source of drain on the charitable donations of the populace and you'll see much of that money being funneled into the fewer organizations left - meaning that each organization gets a bigger budget the fewer there are for the money to be divided into. More focused spending, less division and less duplication of efforts.

In fact, with the burgeoning porn industry, and its porn stars getting younger
all the time, plus the growing sexualization of children, we could all wind up
as dirty priests ourselves.

And what the hell is this supposed to mean? You think all of us are prone to "sexualizing" children? Why would you assume any of us want to behave like a dirty priest? Let alone "all" of us?

Also... has the lower age limit on legality of people in porn dropped from age 18 recently and I wasn't aware? "Getting younger all the time" - isn't that what you said? How does that work exactly? If 18 year olds have been employed in the porn industry, isn't that the lower limit having already been hit? Is it going lower than that "all the time?"

If these things don't represent what you meant... then next time say what you mean. You sound like a damn fool to me currently.

 

[PruePhillip]

And why is this? Because the post WWII generation would have wanted the institutions protected over the kids? And this is what? More moral? No... it just means those people had their priorities out of whack. An organization known to harbor and protect child molesters should burn. Period. I don't care what other good it is doing. Let it be replaced by something that can do good and not rape/molest kids. Seriously. Your point here is garbage. Trash. Our "aid" organizations are spread thin because there are so damn many of them. Take away one source of drain on the charitable donations of the populace and you'll see much of that money being funneled into the fewer organizations left - meaning that each organization gets a bigger budget the fewer there are for the money to be divided into. More focused spending, less division and less duplication of efforts.


And what the hell is this supposed to mean? You think all of us are prone to "sexualizing" children? Why would you assume any of us want to behave like a dirty priest? Let alone "all" of us?

Also... has the lower age limit on legality of people in porn dropped from age 18 recently and I wasn't aware? "Getting younger all the time" - isn't that what you said? How does that work exactly? If 18 year olds have been employed in the porn industry, isn't that the lower limit having already been hit? Is it going lower than that "all the time?"

If these things don't represent what you meant... then next time say what you mean. You sound like a damn fool to me currently.

See those figures in my profile below?
The age that kids now engage in pornography is 11 years old in Australia.
In the days of the dirty priest kids had little access to porn at all.
Average age of girls having sex is now 16 in Australia.
The institutions that protected children are now gone. And more children
are harmed by pedophile, permissive, broken home, adulterous society
than were ever harmed by the 3-4% of Catholic priests who were abusers.

I don't agree with priests who are pedophiles, of course. No-one does. But
I don't like this new society where everyone gets to be a dirty priest.

 

[pearl]

But did this actually change canon law?

It appears from the letter to the Irish Bishops that Canon Law was not followed.

"I am directed to inform the individual bishops of Ireland of the preoccupations of the Congregation in its regard, underlining that in the sad cases of accusations of sexual abuse by clerics the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed under pain of invalidity of the acts involved if the priest so punished were to make hierarchal recourse against his bishop.
Since the policies on sexual abuse in the English speaking world exhibit many of the same characteristics and procedures, the Congregation is involved in a global study of them. At the appropriate time, with the collaboration of the interested Episcopal Conferences and in dialogue with them, the Congregation will not be remiss in establishing some concrete directives with regard to these Policies."
As metis pointed out;

Procedural changes were made in 2002 but have been much more strengthened in the last couple of years, including a strongly-worded Vatican directive just a couple of weeks ago.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

See those figures in my profile below?
The age that kids now engage in pornography is 11 years old in Australia.
In the days of the dirty priest kids had little access to porn at all.
Average age of girls having sex is now 16 in Australia.
The institutions that protected children are now gone. And more children
are harmed by pedophile, permissive, broken home, adulterous society
than were ever harmed by the 3-4% of Catholic priests who were abusers.

I don't agree with priests who are pedophiles, of course. No-one does. But
I don't like this new society where everyone gets to be a dirty priest.

Please stop saying "everyone." It is idiotic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It appears from the letter to the Irish Bishops that Canon Law was not followed.

Because, according to your link, child sex abuse claims are deemed "papal secrets" and divulging them was forbidden.

Apparently, the Irish bishops sought a dispensation but were refused by the Vatican. More recently, they did get one... and the US in 2002 and worldwide in 2010.

... so as far as I can tell:

- abuse by priests is still considered a "papal secret"
- the Pope is able to grant dispensations.
- presumably, the Pope is also able to revoke those dispensations

 

[PruePhillip]

Please stop saying "everyone." It is idiotic.

It is indeed. Sorry. Let me say "the majority" if it's over 50%.
More than half my figures below are over 50% and the rest
are catching up. Next hot button could be polygamy.

 

[PruePhillip]

Because, according to your link, child sex abuse claims are deemed "papal secrets" and divulging them was forbidden.

Apparently, the Irish bishops sought a dispensation but were refused by the Vatican. More recently, they did get one... and the US in 2002 and worldwide in 2010.

... so as far as I can tell:

- abuse by priests is still considered a "papal secret"
- the Pope is able to grant dispensations.
- presumably, the Pope is also able to revoke those dispensations

They can revoke, dispense, decree all they like.
But that is only for the Catholic Church - it's not
what God will do.

 

[pearl]

They can revoke, dispense, decree all they like.
But that is only for the Catholic Church - it's not
what God will do.

Good point!
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

They can revoke, dispense, decree all they like.
But that is only for the Catholic Church - it's not
what God will do.

You do realize that the damage is being done in the here-and-now, correct? That these children's psychological well-being and trust in humanity is being destroyed actively by these priests right here on Earth, right? And you're going to say we should rely on "God" to punish them once they are no longer part of the Earth? That its okay for these things to be kept secret/private because "God" is going to deal with it eventually? Good thing the law system doesn't defer to asinine ideas like this and actively deals with problems as they occur in life.

No matter what you assert, there is no guarantee that "God" is around to punish anyone. In fact, from all available evidence in examination of the reality we inhabit, we should certainly act as if there is no such entity. Making sure these kids are protected here, on Earth, within the only existence we are actually guaranteed, should be of utmost importance. The opinions of anyone who thinks otherwise should rightly be completely ignored.

 

[leibowde84]

Secondly, the vast majority of the abuse was homosexual in nature, even though news will not frame it this way. If was mostly connected to gay behavior; male/male, with very little, in proportion, in terms of lesbian or heterosexual abuse.

Pedophelia is not homosexual in nature. It is the attraction to prepubescent children, not the same sex. To equate the two is not only idiotic, it acts to belittle the victims of pedophelia by equating it with a consensual relationship like homosexuality. There are no victims in a consensual homosexual relationship. Pedophelia is a crime because it immensely harms children. The Catholic Church refuses to change the priesthood from being so enticing for pedophiles since parents often entrust their children to priests without questioning them. Thankfully, that practice is becoming less prevalent.

 

[pearl]

abuse by priests is still considered a "papal secret"
- the Pope is able to grant dispensations.
- presumably, the Pope is also able to revoke those dispensations

There is much infighting within the Curia regarding the language identifying sexual abusers as evidenced by the remarks of Cardinal Muller, whom Francis removed from his position.
“Cardinal Müller criticizes as a “disastrous error” the changes in Canon Law that have been made in the 1983 Code of Canon Law which, when dealing with priestly offenses against the Sixth Commandment, does not even mention homosexuality as an offense anymore, and which contains a less rigorous set of penalties against any abuser priests.
“Returning to the matter of the abuse crisis, the German prelate explains that in the Church, “it is part of the crisis that one does not wish to see the true causes and covers them up with the help of propaganda phrases of the homosexual lobby. Fornication with teenagers and adults is a mortal sin which no power on earth can declare to be morally neutral.” He calls the “LGBT” ideology within the Church “atheistic,” and adds, in light of the recent Youth Synod in Rome, that the “LGBT” term “has no place in Church documents.”

“Moreover, Cardinal Müller, in light of his stricter handling of sex abuse cases at the CDF, wonders whether there was a homosexual lobby in the Vatican which was glad to see him being dismissed: “But it could be so that it has pleased them that I am no longer tasked in the Congregation for the Doctrine to deal with sexual crimes especially also against male teenagers.”
From the conservative position;
INTERVIEW: Cardinal Müller on Homosexuality Practiced and Covered Up within the Clergy and Hierarchy | Defenders of the Catholic Faith | Hosted by Stephen K. Ray

As I stated previously,

We ought not to equate homosexuality with pedophilia as homosexuals exist in all walks of life they also exist in the Church who are no more a pedophile than are the majority of heterosexuals.

Further info;
Vatican office ordered Irish bishops not to report abuse, report shows : News Headlines