What are your thoughts about the Catholic Church?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's the problem I have with your posts on the CC, namely that it's all too easy to criticize someone else's religious institution while offering nothing about your own. Just about every time I run across people who attack different religions or denominations, when I ask them what's theirs, they won't answer.

IOW, they offer up only destructive criticism of someone else's faith, but never of their own.

... which doesn't make their criticisms necessarily invalid.

 

[metis]

... which doesn't make their criticisms necessarily invalid.

Exactly, and I certainly don't and haven't defended such atrocities, regardless as to who does them. There's a problem when someone only looks at somethings just through "rose-colored glasses" , but there's also a problem when someone only looks at somethings just through "dung-colored glasses".

 

[metis]

the catholic church has some differences with the orthodox church, but the two churches have similar points too. it's good that the two churches have stopped fighting.

Over my 72 years, I have seen a great deal of difference along these lines. Growing up Protestant, I was told not to ever go into a Catholic church, let alone a synagogue or mosque. Nowadays, there's a much more tolerant attitude but, unfortunately, not by all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly, and I certainly don't and haven't defended such atrocities, regardless as to who does them. There's a problem when someone only looks at somethings just through "rose-colored glasses" , but there's also a problem when someone only looks at somethings just through "dung-colored glasses".

My take on it: I think the right approach was taken at Mount Cashel: the site of the abuse was bulldozed, the land was sold off, and the proceeds were used to help compensate the victims.

I'm not sure how much of the Catholic Church would be left if that approach was taken on a large scale.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Over my 72 years, I have seen a great deal of difference along these lines. Growing up Protestant, I was told not to ever go into a Catholic church, let alone a synagogue or mosque. Nowadays, there's a much more tolerant attitude but, unfortunately, not by all.

Just considering the sex abuse issue: how tolerant would you be of any other organization that hid sexual abuse by its staff, shielded accused staff members from prosecution, advised its local organizations not to require mandatory reporting of abuse issues, and shuffled its assets around to stop them from being seized to compensate victims of abuse?

 

[metis]

I'm not sure how much of the Catholic Church would be left if that approach was taken on a large scale.

I really don't believe in mass punishment-- only a slight pun intended.

Just considering the sex abuse issue: how tolerant would you be of any other organization that hid sexual abuse by its staff, shielded accused staff members from prosecution, advised its local organizations not to require mandatory reporting of abuse issues, and shuffled its assets around to stop them from being seized to compensate victims of abuse?

You're beating a dead horse here, as our youngest daughter was sexually abused by the choir director at my wife's church, and he did get fired from it but then just moved on to teach choir at a church & parochial school in a different city.

And during the peak of the sexual abuse scandal a few years ago, my wife stopped going for two months, and it was I who eventually talked her back into going because I could tell she missed it too much. Fortunately, there's been some significant improvement on this, and at all levels of the church.

BTW, as you're undoubtedly aware of, the issue of sexual abuse is not just a Catholic problem, although I'm certainly not posting this to in any way justify what has happened. Nor is it just celebrate clergy that does this, although I do believe the RCC should move to having married clergy, which at least might help out somewhat.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really don't believe in mass punishment-- only a slight pun intended.

How is that "mass punishment"? If the organization did something that's criminal - and in many cases, it did - make the organization responsible for restitution.

You're beating a dead horse here, as our youngest daughter was sexually abused by the choir director at my wife's church, and he did get fired from it but then just moved on to teach choir at a church & parochial school in a different city.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

The priest at my ex-wife's church was never fired. He was still performing mass regularly when he died.

Another priest who had served at my ex's church (though not while I was there) assaulted at least 16 boys over 4 decades at the affiliated private school. He was never fired either.

And during the peak of the sexual abuse scandal a few years ago, my wife stopped going for two months, and it was I who eventually talked her back into going because I could tell she missed it too much. Fortunately, there's been some significant improvement on this, and at all levels of the church.

BTW, as you're undoubtedly aware of, the issue of sexual abuse is not just a Catholic problem, although I'm certainly not posting this to in any way justify what has happened. Nor is it just celebrate clergy that does this, although I do believe the RCC should move to having married clergy, which at least might help out somewhat.

I agree that sexual abuse is not just a Catholic problem. However, the Catholic Church has been much slower to adopt something like a responsible approach than most other organizations. It has also had no problem using its unique power and influence to protect pedophiles at the expense of victims.

 

[metis]

How is that "mass punishment"? If the organization did something that's criminal - and in many cases, it did - make the organization responsible for restitution.

Because a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc., was built for and by the people who attend it. If the church has to pay for it, that's perfectly acceptable in my book, but I wouldn't want the people who attend in either of these places to be punished by having their place of worship taken down.

I agree that sexual abuse is not just a Catholic problem. However, the Catholic Church has been much slower to adopt something like a responsible approach than most other organizations. It has also had no problem using its unique power and influence to protect pedophiles at the expense of victims.

Agreed, but fortunately changes are have been taking place since PF has taken over and the bishops have taken much more solidly moral positions-- finally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc., was built for and by the people who attend it. If the church has to pay for it, that's perfectly acceptable in my book, but I wouldn't want the people who attend in either of these places to be punished by having their place of worship taken down.

That's up to the Vatican. The Catholic Church as a whole certainly has plenty of money it could use to pay every judgement against every priest and diocese if it chose. However, it's set things up so that each diocese is its own (financially) independent unit. If the amount a diocese owes in restitution exceeds the amount it has in ready cash - and if the Vatican doesn't want to chip in - then start selling off assets to meet their responsibility. If this stresses the parishoners out, they can take it up with the Pope and ask him to cut a cheque to save their church. That's certainly the fairer option than asking the victims of church abuse to make do with less than what they're fairly owed.

Edit: the parishoners may have paid to build their church, but they don't own it any more. They freely gave it to the diocese.

Agreed, but fortunately changes are have been taking place since PF has taken over and the bishops have taken much more solidly moral positions-- finally.

That was what it seemed before, but then that letter from the Vatican to the Irish bishops was uncovered, which revealed that even though the Church's abuse prevention and response policy seemed thorough and decent, the Irish Church had been secretly instructed not to follow major portions of it - e.g. mandatory reporting of abuse claims to police - were in violation of canon law.

That episode destroyed any trust I might have once had that individual dioceses can be relied on to do the right thing, or even to follow their stated policies. And for whatever changes Francis has made, I haven't heard of any substantial changes to the canon law provisions that were at issue back in the 90s, and people like Cardinal Law are still hiding in Rome, far away from those who might want to charge or subpoeba them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Romans 2:14-16 New International Version (NIV)

If laws can be written on gentile hearts, that means God doesn't need anyone to belong to a specific church and can simply "upload" morality to whomever He wishes.

re: pic of Natives attacking Spaniards

Those poor, poor Spaniards: you just can't invade and kill off populations like the good ol' days anymore ...

And do you think that the Natives ripping out the heart of that victim will be judged as murderous psychopaths for wanting to please their gods while Abraham won't? Both did it because they felt a deity told them to, after all...

 

[England my lionheart]

Exactly, and I certainly don't and haven't defended such atrocities, regardless as to who does them. There's a problem when someone only looks at somethings just through "rose-colored glasses" , but there's also a problem when someone only looks at somethings just through "dung-colored glasses".

There's absolutely no problem with looking at the cc with eyes wide open,the cc could do a lot to combat stds and unwanted pregnancies by simply allowing contraception,it could have done so much more to protect the victims of paedophile priests,it could use its immense wealth to rebuild the hovels its helped create but its not going to happen.

 

[MJFlores]

If laws can be written on gentile hearts, that means God doesn't need anyone to belong to a specific church and can simply "upload" morality to whomever He wishes.

re: pic of Natives attacking Spaniards

Those poor, poor Spaniards: you just can't invade and kill off populations like the good ol' days anymore ...

And do you think that the Natives ripping out the heart of that victim will be judged as murderous psychopaths for wanting to please their gods while Abraham won't? Both did it because they felt a deity told them to, after all...

It is true that those you do not know God's law, have a law of good and evil written in their hearts. But the question is, did they obey what was written in their hearts?

Romans 3:9-12 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

So are we Jews better than other people? No, we have already said that those who are Jews, as well as those who are not Jews, are the same. They are all guilty of sin. As the Scriptures (Psalm 14:1-3) say,

“There is no one doing what is right,
not even one.
There is no one who understands.
There is no one who is trying to be with God.
They have all turned away from him,
and now they are of no use to anyone.
There is no one who does good,
not even one.”

Psalm 53:2-3 New International Version (NIV)

God looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

When God said that I pretty sure he is talking about everybody. So how can be righteous in the sight of God is another matter. This thread is about what are my thoughts about the Catholic Church so would re-direct:

“For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.” (The Story of the Christian Church, p. 41)

 

[metis]

Edit: the parishoners may have paid to build their church, but they don't own it any more. They freely gave it to the diocese.

That wasn't my point, namely the issue of legal ownership.

And for whatever changes Francis has made, I haven't heard of any substantial changes to the canon law provisions that were at issue back in the 90s, and people like Cardinal Law are still hiding in Rome, far away from those who might want to charge or subpoeba them.

Canon Law need not be changed as it certainly doesn't allow for sex abuse. What was needed was enforcement of the civil law, and steps have already been taken to deal with that, both with the Vatican and also with the U.S. bishops and other bishops worldwide.

 

[metis]

There's absolutely no problem with looking at the cc with eyes wide open,the cc could do a lot to combat stds and unwanted pregnancies by simply allowing contraception,it could have done so much more to protect the victims of paedophile priests,

I fully agree with the idea that the Vatican should, imo, go with allowing contraception that doesn't produce abortions.

it could use its immense wealth to rebuild the hovels its helped create but its not going to happen.

The amount of charity work, especially with the poor, is enormous, and I know this from first-hand experience even though I'm not Catholic. Even the LDS and Mennonite churches are so impressed that they both contribute to Catholic Relief Services, for just one example.

 

[metis]

“For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.” (The Story of the Christian Church, p. 41)

Every church is different that what it was 2000 years ago, especially since "necessity is the mother of invention" and change. If you have any religious affiliation, I can guarantee you that your church and your denomination do not match what existed with the Way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That wasn't my point, namely the issue of legal ownership.

If we're talking about moral ownership, then maybe the parishioners have a moral responsibility to ensure that the victims of "their" priests and bishops receive restitution. If the parishioners want to provide the money that would allow for justice to be satisfied AND their church to be saved, I have no objection.

Canon Law need not be changed as it certainly doesn't allow for sex abuse.

The gist of the 1995 letter to the Irish bishops was that canon law has requirements for how to respond to allegations of abuse, and mandatory reporting to secular authorities goes against these requirements.

 

[Katzpur]

The amount of charity work, especially with the poor, is enormous, and I know this from first-hand experience even though I'm not Catholic. Even the LDS and Mennonite churches are so impressed that they both contribute to Catholic Relief Services, for just one example.

Actually, the LDS have their own humanitarian fund, which does a tremendous amount of good worldwide. We do, however, often partner with the Catholic Relief Services in the distribution of the goods (clothing, medical supplies, food, etc.).

Here in Salt Lake City, we generally have an annual fund-raiser in conjunction with the Catholic Church in our neighborhood. It really pisses me off when I hear people say the Catholic Church does no good in the world.

 

[metis]

Actually, the LDS have their own humanitarian fund, which does a tremendous amount of good worldwide. We do, however, often partner with the Catholic Relief Services in the distribution of the goods (clothing, medical supplies, food, etc.).

Here in Salt Lake City, we generally have an annual fund-raiser in conjunction with the Catholic Church in our neighborhood. It really pisses me off when I hear people say the Catholic Church does no good in the world.

Thank you so much for the clarification and response. And keep up the good work yourselves.

 

[metis]

The gist of the 1995 letter to the Irish bishops was that canon law has requirements for how to respond to allegations of abuse, and mandatory reporting to secular authorities goes against these requirements.

That was 1995, and could you provide any source whereas this supposed directive came out of Canon Law?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That was 1995,

I made a mistake: it was actually 1997. Regardless, if you know of any relevant changes to canon law since then, I'm all ears.

and could you provide any source whereas this supposed directive came out of Canon Law?

Will the New York Times do?

By 1996, an advisory committee of Irish bishops had drawn up a new policy that included “mandatory reporting” of suspected abusers to civil authorities. The letter, signed by Archbishop Luciano Storero, then the Vatican’s apostolic nuncio — or chief representative — in Ireland, told the Irish bishops that the Vatican had reservations about mandatory reporting for both “moral and canonical” reasons. Archbishop Storero died in 2000.

The letter said that bishops who failed to follow canon law procedures precisely might find that their decisions to defrock abusive clerics would be overturned on appeal by Vatican courts.

Vatican Letter Warned Bishops on Abuse Policy

Or how about the original letter (link in the article)?

"In particular, the situation of 'mandatory reporting' gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature."

Edit: until such time as I see something officially from the Catholic Church that clearly says that mandatory reporting no longer violates canon law, I'm not going to assume that any Catholic organization's mandatory reporting policies will actually be followed.