I dipped into some controversy on the board about whether or not this board should be posting about the scandal in the Catholic Church. I don't know if it is my place to weigh in, but I believe the board should. If anything I wish there were more post -- or perhaps rather different posts.

First of all -- this scandal is a thing. It's not just classic American xenophobic anti-Catholicism. Some watchers believe it might bring down the American Catholic Church as funding and participation are dropping precipitously. Try googling "I am leaving the Catholic Church because of the sex scandal" and you will find a treasure trove of exit stories. I find many of them moving -- wonderful -- and absolutely of interest to people leaving the Mormon Church. These people are talking about being torn up between love and anger, between family and conscience, between a past layered with sweetness and a need to affirm the most basic message of that past by leaving it behind. These are not only great stories for people leaving Mormonism -- they are the great stories of being human -- of a pain and a need for integrity -- even at great cost -- that transcend all religions, societies and times. I find them often in my travels on the net -- and I wish I saw them here more often -- or at all.

"For decades now, friends have asked me why I, a confrontational skeptic, a pro-choice, marching in the streets feminist, could still call myself a Catholic. For the same reason I don't move to Canada, I'd explain. Because if you have any privilege in the world, your moral imperative when you see injustice and corruption is not to flee, but to stay and fight all the harder to make things better. There is an Episcopalian church a few blocks down the street from my Catholic parish. This Sunday, I guess you could say I'm moving to Canada."

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/25/i-quit-the-catholic-church-im-not-giving-up-my-faith-but-im-losing-my-religion/

I’m A Lifelong Catholic. Here’s Why I’ve Finally Decided To Leave The Church.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/leaving-catholic-church-sex-abuse_us_5b7d68ace4b0cd327df89ddc

This is possibly my favorite (except for a friend's, and it's my connection to her that makes that special). This is simply brilliantly complex.

"Tenderness and Horror
"I grew up in Scranton’s Catholic diocese, which is now reeling from sex abuse scandals. I don’t know how to process the loss of that spiritual home...And so it’s from both a distance and yet an intense, aching closeness that I watch the Catholic Diocese of Scranton burning. I scroll through Twitter and see hundreds of people I never met writing screeds about “pedo priests,” calling the Roman Catholic Church “demonic,” blaming parents and families for putting their children in the vicinity of men who might abuse them, and acting like any Mass-attending Catholic is a tacit endorser of child abuse. You know, I get it. I see the point. I myself can be quick to snap judgments. I’m inclined to think that anyone who says #AllLivesMatter is a police brutality apologist; that folks who “don’t see color” are casual racists; that folks who “love the sinner, but hate the sin” are homophobes. I, too, can be black-and-white, cut and dried about the complex systemic powers that work to oppress, to silence, to hurt. So this rush to judgment against the church makes sense to me: Some wrongs are unequivocal, and some wrongdoers don’t deserve a chance at penance. But when respondents say “the church” is at fault, they hurl barbs at church members as much as at church administrators—and I don’t know if that’s fair...And we grieve that now. There are things you believe so you can keep on living. Until you can’t, and you need to find some other way to live. Some other way to find your grandmother’s voice in the air. Some other way to sense your childhood. Your family. Catholics in Scranton are not foolish people who threw their children to wolves. They are children of God—a God I don’t even believe in, yet still know to be real—curled into his heartbeat all their lives, connected through him to a lifeline of family, identity, sacred belonging. They trust that sacred belonging, and it is distinct from the Vatican. The church, as a community, is alive and human and separate from the church as an organization. It’s not that they blindly trusted the pope or a priest—they trusted one another; they trusted their communal family. It’s not a thing so easily given up. And despite the fact that vile scandals of child abuse now feel like old news to secular culture writ large, it doesn’t hurt less for us who feel the loss of that spiritual home. The loss of God’s arms. The loss of that place. " If that doesn't make you cry, if that doesn't remind why it can be HARD to leave Mormonism, what is wrong with you?!?

https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/scranton-catholic-dioceses-sex-abuse-scandals-are-devastating-to-reckon-with-for-those-who-grew-up-there.html



Other stories are not about leaving, but they underscore that this is NOT the same as abuse in the schools or abuse in the society at large -- and to say so is dismissive, minimizing, and even gaslighting:

"I’m a Catholic priest. I’m ashamed at this abuse crisis.
Structural changes alone won’t fix the church. Our culture must change as well."

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/8/31/17801204/catholic-church-abuse-scandal-pennsylvania-priest

Other see hope of a rebirth in the Catholic Church as it finally loses its hierarchical structure and becomes more democratic, as more people become involved.

But here is the deal -- these stories are told by Catholics -- and I think that is important. I am not aware of anyone who is currently Catholic -- and out -- that is admittedly Catholic, openly Catholic, proudly Catholic posting about it here -- and that makes me uneasy -- for it is their story.

In any case, what is happening is monumental -- and heartbreaking -- and it deserves better than a weak defense of "Other people do it, too," or "Aha! Proof religions are evil!" or sneering accusations that all priests are child rapists -- or even a great deal of intellectualizing.

Because what we have gone through leaving Mormonism deserves better than that, too. Right?

Edited to add a URL I forgot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2019 01:26AM by janeeliot.

You are missing my point.I am in no way defending The Catholics by saying sex abuse is everywhere. That is a sad truth. The abuse is real,of course it should be discussed and of course many Catholics are leaving but many others are staying despite being upset. My point was that the same two or three posters seem obsessed with this to the point that they are downplaying abuse elsewhere. We get more discussion of Catholic abuse on this ex Mormon board than Mormon abuse and there is plenty of that. Whether these posters believe it or not,the studies show that the same percentage of abuse is likely happening in other churches schools and scouts and being covered up. Why is this being ignored? These victims are suffering too.Another issue is that a few posters have already decided that the Catholic church will fail to do anything significant. Maybe they are right,but maybe we could wait and see. The conference just ended. There are plenty of things being done on the local level to protect kids in Salt Lake and elsewhere.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2019 02:46AM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point was that the same
> two or three posters seem obsessed with this to
> the point that they are downplaying abuse
> elsewhere.

No one is downplaying abuse elsewhere. The same people condemn BSA and LDS abuse as in the Virginia cases, the BSA/Mormon cases, and McKenna Denson.

We care about the RCC abuse because of the light it sheds on Mormon abuse. That was the point of the last study to which you linked: that organizational structure--authority claims, hierarchical power, group pressure--elevates abuse rates. If you don't want us to compare the RCC patterns with LDS patterns, perhaps you should not have sent us to that study.


--------------------
> Whether these posters
> believe it or not,the studies show that the same
> percentage of abuse is likely happening in other
> churches schools and scouts and being covered up.
> Why is this being ignored?

Your "studies" are in fact one study: the 2004 John Jay project that was funded by the Catholic Church and could not incorporate the recent acknowledgements that the RCC has been destroying relevant evidence all along. Your dusty old study is therefore dubious and very possibly wrong.


----------------
You assert that you are "in no way defending The Catholics by saying sex abuse is everywhere."

But then you do just that. You write that the fact that sex abuse is everywhere "is a sad truth." You then assert that "the the same percentage of abuse is likely happening in other churches schools and scouts and being covered up." So yes, you are "defending the Catholics by saying that sex abuse is everywhere."


-----------
Your bias in favor of the RCC has you claiming evidence that is sparse, dated, and incompatible with what the Pope and the German bishop just said. Is it your belief that they were dissembling?

Thanks for proving my point. You are one of the most focused on the Catholics but ,regardless of how you feel about abuse elsewhere, you haven't said much if anything about it and have downplayed it over and over. You reject anything that doesn't feed you prejudice.I have.admitted the study could be wrong, but it is generally accepted. I have simply pointed out that the!problem is a lot bigger than the Catholic church.That is a freaking fact and needs to be pointed out. You have downplayed abuse elsewhere and accused me of defending the Catholics when I have repeatedly said that Caatholic abuse is horrible.I have said I.won't blame everyone in the hierarchy regardless of his duties, his knowledge and what he may have done or said that hasn't been in the paper Got it yet? Probably not.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for proving my point. You are one of the
> most focused on the Catholics but ,regardless of
> how you feel about abuse elsewhere, you haven't
> said much if anything about it and have downplayed
> it over and over.

Show me one instance in which I or anyone else have downplayed abuse anywhere.


-----------------
> You reject anything that
> doesn't feed you prejudice.

Quite the contrary. I ask for credible evidence so I can correct any bias I may unwittingly have. Meanwhile, I accept what the Pope and the German bishop said as true.

Why don't you?


----------------
> I have.admitted the
> study could be wrong, but it is generally
> accepted.

I am unaware of your stating that the 2004 study "could be wrong." Perhaps you could indicate where you said that.

Moreover, your claim that the 2004 study "is generally accepted" is inaccurate. For a while that study had a certain credibility based on the evidence available in 2002-2003, long before the recent revelations. But your second study, which you apparently didn't understand, disputes the conclusions of the 2004 paper, thereby acknowledging that the Catholic Church (and the LDS Church) probably does produce more child abuse than society at large.


------------
> I have simply pointed out that
> the!problem is a lot bigger than the Catholic
> church.

Please indicate where I or anyone else has disputed that obvious fact.


------------------
> That is a freaking fact and needs to be
> pointed out.

No one has disputed that.


-----------------
> You have . . . accused me of defending the Catholics when I
> have repeatedly said that Caatholic abuse is
> horrible.

No one accuses you of "defending the Catholics." "The Catholics" are not culpable. The Catholic Church, by contrast, is culpable--and you have time and again minimized that guilt by saying the church is just like every other religion, social group, and school in terms of abuse.


-------------------
> I have said I.won't blame everyone in the
> hierarchy regardless of his duties, his knowledge
> and what he may have done or said that hasn't been
> in the paper.

No one says "everyone in the hierarchy" is guilty. You are transparently erecting a straw man and then attacking it.


-----------------
> Got it yet? Probably not.

Since you are producing studies that contradict your position, the question is not whether I "get it" but whether you do.

You have said you blame the hierarchy and specifically all of them .In fact that is the first thing we argued about. It was several months ago and that was the very first thing I took issue with you about. Up til then I had great respect for you. You also specifically said you believe that Catholics abuse in higher rates than others, but you offer no proof. You either have a very short memory of you are lying. At any rate this was several months ago and I don't have time to do a search right now.I.am more interested in watching the news about Cohen's testimony Perhaps I will look later. I remember it clearly and you did say both.You have a habit of saying things and then denying them and a habit of misrepresenting what I.have said. Both of these things are disturbing.

Can't get the link to.work but do a search for the thread called 'I could do Catholic' from six months ago. You specifically said you can blame the whole Catholic heirarchy just you blame the Quorum of Twelve of the LDS church.You were very clear and we had a fairly long discussion about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 12:32AM by bona dea.

You can't get the link to work but you think it will for me. Seriously?

But I will note that you are already reframing the debate to support your perspective. I do not blame very single leader for child abuse. I think the vast majority, and probably all, who have achieved the rank of cardinal are complicit because they have knowledge--just as I think the Q15 are aware of most of the LDS crimes--but that knowledge, that acquiescence, is not the same as personal guilt for the crimes.

Having said that, I am happy to address your mischaracterization of my views. You claim that I blame the entire hierarchy for the child abuse. The answer to that is an emphatic yes. It is precisely the structure of the Catholic Church that permits child abuse and coverup. Again, that was the point of the last study to which you linked. It is common sense.

I fully believe that until the RCC is fundamentally restructured to permit outside review and complete cooperation with civil authorities, the abuse will persist. I believe the same of the LDS church. Institutional structures have consequences.

But that is not what, until perhaps now, you accused me of. It would be nice if you managed to keep these distinctions straight.

You can read it.I didn't ask you to post it if you can I would welcome it, but all I a asking that you read it Same for anyone else who cares. It is on p 74.You might want to check out p 66 too. I said that percentage wise the Mormons may well be as guilty as Catholics. You categorically denied it. Without evidence of course. Before you say I have no evidence, I said'may'. That is a possibility,not a fact.
. If you are having trouble going back that far,To to the bottom of the search page. There is a box asking how far back you want to go. Click on a year. Otherwise you can only go.back a month

I reproduce the post below.

Your accusation above is that I "blame everyone in the hierarchy regardless of his duties, his knowledge. . ." And again, that I "blame the hierarchy and specifically all of them."

You burrowed through six months' worth of posts and claim to have found one on page 74 that evidences my "blaming everyone in the hierarchy." In fact, it does no such thing.

As for what I did write, I stand by every word of it. The Mormon Church is not powerful enough in any country, let alone scores of countries, to protect and promote child molesters as effectively as the RCC. This is parenthetically the point made in the study you cited the other day. If you don't agree with me, you shouldn't cite studies that do.


-------------

September 15, 2018.

No, Bona Dea, the Mormon Church is not as abusive as the Catholic Church. Catholicism has for centuries had a celibate, permanent clergy that has been systemically protected. It has dominated educational institutions, hospitals, orphanages, and homes for unwed mothers in many countries; it has developed enduring and intimate relationships with political parties and governments. It has used those advantages to conceal its own atrocities. And, as demonstrated by CC2's link, it still does not understand that the atrocities are child abuse and not adult homosexuality.

The Mormon Church--watch carefully: this is where the relevance arises--may be introspective and chauvinistic, but it is nowhere near as powerful as the RCC. And there is turnover in its clergy, which ensures that new people see the old crimes and sometimes do something about it. There is no way the LDS Church can tolerate and conceal as evil as the RCC does.

The Catholic Church is what the abusive and destructive Mormon Church could, worst-case scenario, become. Defend what you want, but don't turn around and attempt to silence those who understand the political dynamics better than you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 03:19AM by Lot's Wife.

The other post you find unduly critical of the RCC states:


-----
"The only reasonable comparison, obviously, is proportionality. And no, the mainstream LDS Church is not likely to have the same degree of child sexual abuse as the RCC."

I stand by that for the reasons adduced above. Neither this nor the post on p. 76 states that every member of the RCC hierarchy is guilty, which is what you accused me of doing.

You have not produced posts that substantiate your accusation that I blame every member of the RCC hierarchy for abuse or coverup. I will not attribute that failure to "dishonesty," "lying," "stalking" or any of the other things you have said about me over the last few days. Why? Because I know you are not a malicious person. I therefore choose to ascribe your mistakes to sloppiness. It would be nice if you were more careful.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 03:36AM by Lot's Wife.

Others can read and make up their own minds of they are interested. I stand by what I said.Good night.

What the hell do you think,' I will blame the whole hierarchy' means? Apparently not that you blame the whole hierarchy which you denied saying. Words have meanings and you are gaslighting. How dishonest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 03:34AM by bona dea.

August 21 (I'll dig this one up for you):

"I will blame the whole hierarchy, or at least the Q15 and the equivalent in the RC. Those are bureaucrats with the power to solve these problems. That they choose piecemeal palliatives rather than thorough remedies indicates that either they do not care or they feel the needs of children must be balanced against the institution's needs."

There is a difference between accusing every member of the hierarchy of molestation and coverup on the one hand and a failure to exercise their powers to fix the problem on the other. If a military exercise fails, or a CEO fails to exercise his fiduciary duties, heads roll. Is the CEO guilty of the embezzlement undertaken by his subordinates? No. But he is guilty of misfeasance and is legally and morally responsible for that negligence.

I hope the point is not lost on you. I have never blamed every RCC leader for child molestation or coverup (though the latter is possible), but I surely do think they are responsible for their failure to do what is morally right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 03:47AM by Lot's Wife.

I never said you accused them of molestation for God's sake. You accused them all of covering it up.It is different.

Oh I get it.

Do you think MBS personally shot Khashoggi? Kim Jung-un personally destroyed Otto Warmbier? Putin personally poisoned his critics in London and personally hacked Hillary Clinton's email accounts? Of course they did not--so they are not culpable.

That seems the be your standard for Catholic and Mormon authorities; you are at one with our beloved president in believing that since those men didn't commit those atrocities, they are not guilty of them. That is of course a minority view, the more standard interpretation attributing guilt to those men because they created and perpetuated the systems that predictably produced those results.

But what the hell, if you insist that Francis and the others who have demonstrably engaged in coverups are not "guilty," you and the president can go on your merry way because there ain't no way to argue with logic like that.

In Athenaland no one is culpable for anything unless they personally pulled the trigger. Right? Leaders aren't guilty if their underlyings commit crimes that serve their interests. Frank isn't guilty of hiding the Argentinian bishop's sins, of blocking the American friends, of diluting his predecessors' reforms.

I guess I always misunderstood the meaning of Shakespeare's sentence: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" I always assumed the king was responsible for the murder conducted at this behest. But you, BD, have set the record straight. Kings and Cardinals and Apostles are never culpable for encouraging, hiding and perpetuating the sins of their minions.

Thanks for clarifying that.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have said you blame the hierarchy and
> specifically all of them.

Bona dea, you aren't very adept at nuance. I have never said that everyone in the hierarchy is guilty; I have said that I suspect that anyone who has risen high in that sort of an organization is aware of the scandals and has probably tolerated or participated in some form of coverup. That is a surmise; it is susceptible to correction if there is good evidence to the contrary.


------------------
> You also specifically said you believe
> that Catholics abuse in higher rates than others,
> but you offer no proof.

I said that I suspect (again, nuance) that the RCC produces more child abuse than society at large. The basis for that hypothesis is the observation that the RCC has a long history of protecting molesters and moving them to new places. In short, if you start with the assumption that the percentage of abusers in the priesthood is the same as in general society but then use coverups to protect those abusers from the authorities and give them access to new populations of children, then it seems likely that they will continue abusing kids longer than if they had not been protected.

That too is a surmise capable of change if confronted by evidence to the contrary. And yet the last study you referenced buttressed my hypothesis. Its conclusion, which you apparently missed, was that organizations with robust hierarchies, strong authority structures, and widespread trust among their members do indeed produce more child abuse than other organizations and broader society.

My hypothesis could still be inaccurate; but the more studies you cite that support it, the more likely it becomes that I am correct and you are not.


-----------------
> You either have a very
> short memory of you are lying. At any rate this
> was several months ago and I don't have time to do
> a search right now.

Sure. Forgive me if I doubt your statement that "perhaps I will look later." That would require effort and a willingness to admit mistakes, which seems unlikely.


----------------
> You have a habit of saying things and
> then denying them and a habit of misrepresenting
> what I.have said.

Your researches will shed light on your assertions.

I was frankly surprised by your unwillingness, lo these many months ago, to acknowledge that many in the Vatican must surely have been involved in coverups. At least we now know, given what the Pope and several cardinals and bishops explicitly stated as well as what just happened to Cardinal Pell, that I was right on that score.


-----------------
> Both of these things are
> disturbing.

I note your disturbance.

Oh, dear God, I never said that many were not involved. I don't think numbers or per centres ever came up. I said ALL were not involved.I know I never said that because it is not what I think. There is a big difference between the two. Please, stop putting words in my mouth. It is dishonest.

To find your words, please search your name, to back six months to the theread, I could do Catholic. It is there in black and white. Nuance be damned. That is what you said. I.would link it if I.could figure out how to do it.I did do the research and told you where to find it.Another lie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 12:45AM by bona dea.

Percentages never came up?

How many times in the last fortnight have you said that the rate of child abuse in the church is the same as in other organizations or society in general? How exactly do you measure "rates" if not by "percentages?"

Now you act like you never mentioned rates?

Iwas talking about the members of the Vatican officials who knew about the.abuse and were involved in the cover up, not the number of priests who molested and since we were talking about the heirarchy, I think that was clear and I think you know that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 02:56AM by bona dea.

My name plus "I could do Catholic" takes me back 23 days, no more.

Either that or I am lying, a term you employ with surprising insouciance.

"Nuance be damned" is an unimpressive sentiment given that you use it to justify recharacterizing my statements to bring your attacks closer to plausibility. Accuracy matters, BD. Your disregard for it seems surprisingly like the equivocations that emanate from the COB and the Vatican.

Give them more time, she said months ago, for Francis has only had five years. Now we know that he has personally protected at least one ranking molester, eviscerated the US bishops' reformist platform, and presided over the continued destruction of records.

Give them more time, she says.

It is there and it was six months ago.Keep looking.

You made the accusation. Back it up or leave it unsubstantiated: your choice.

Check the 'go back one year' box at the bottom of the search page.Otherwise you can only go.back a.month. In a new post above I gave you the page and also another relevant page where you categorically denied that the Mormon church may be just as abusive in terms of percentages. I don't expect you to figure out how to post either, but I have no problem if you do. I would just like you and anyone else who cares to read it.I am done. I am going to bed.

The second article, about Scranton, is especially insightful. Scranton is where my very Catholic mother was raised, and went to Catholic school, and is a bedrock of Catholicism.

>>The church, as a community, is alive and human and separate from the church as an organization

This has always been true. Catholics listen to the pope, and respect his office, but do not necessarily follow his pronouncements. They do their own thinking, and the ability to think for yourself is woven into the religion. I think that for Catholics, community is a huge deal, at least as huge a deal as it is for Mormons -- and that is what makes it difficult to leave. They are not leaving just a denomination, they are leaving their people.

It does not surprise me in the least that many American Catholics are having a faith crisis over the abuse scandal. The abuse, and more than that, the church's long-time tolerance of the abuse, would shake them to the core. It is not in line with their morals and values.

It's been estimated that 6% of Catholic priests are or were involved in the abuse scandals. I don't know if that percentage is accurate, but it's what I've seen. That would leave 94% of priests in the clear. And the (often kindly) neighborhood priest is what the Catholics know. Higher-ups are often remote to them. So Catholics have to balance their view of their kindly parish priest, who has always been a supporter to their family and their friends, against the horrors emanating from above.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The second article, about Scranton, is especially
> insightful. Scranton is where my very Catholic
> mother was raised, and went to Catholic school,
> and is a bedrock of Catholicism.
>
> >>The church, as a community, is alive and human
> and separate from the church as an organization
>
> This has always been true. Catholics listen to the
> pope, and respect his office, but do not
> necessarily follow his pronouncements. They do
> their own thinking, and the ability to think for
> yourself is woven into the religion. I think that
> for Catholics, community is a huge deal, at least
> as huge a deal as it is for Mormons -- and that is
> what makes it difficult to leave. They are not
> leaving just a denomination, they are leaving
> their people.
>
> It does not surprise me in the least that many
> American Catholics are having a faith crisis over
> the abuse scandal. The abuse, and more than that,
> the church's long-time tolerance of the abuse,
> would shake them to the core. It is not in line
> with their morals and values.
>
> It's been estimated that 6% of Catholic priests
> are or were involved in the abuse scandals. I
> don't know if that percentage is accurate, but
> it's what I've seen. That would leave 94% of
> priests in the clear. And the (often kindly)
> neighborhood priest is what the Catholics know.
> Higher-ups are often remote to them. So Catholics
> have to balance their view of their kindly parish
> priest, who has always been a supporter to their
> family and their friends, against the horrors
> emanating from above.

Very insightful. Thanks, Summer.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And the (often kindly)
> neighborhood priest is what the Catholics know.
> Higher-ups are often remote to them. So Catholics
> have to balance their view of their kindly parish
> priest, who has always been a supporter to their
> family and their friends, against the horrors
> emanating from above.


This reminds me of an itinerant missionary priest I have an association with. He has talked about how he gets spit on when he is at the airport on occasion.

He is a good man, believes in what he preaches, strives to live what he preaches. He, too, has to deal with the fall out from the scandal. But he keeps going.

I'm less curious as to why Catholics leave Catholicism in light of the scandal and more curious as to why people stay.

From my observations, those who leave have been more inclined to be Catholic due to ethnicity, tradition, etc.

But those who stay do so because of theology. IE Real Presence, belief of it being founded upon the "rock" IE Peter etc.

In this sense, it's much like Mormonism. Those who stay are die-hard TBC's to the core.

It's contracting for sure, but those who stay, are wicked strong in their faith.

ETA: Just finished reading Summer's post on community. Didn't occur to me at first, but yes, it makes sense it what she says. The local parish is a community, a family.
And yes, Catholics respect the Pope, or at least the office, but that doesn't mean they follow blindly. That is a big difference between Mormonism and Catholicism. Catholics can and do disagree and can do so openly without being told to hush up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2019 05:54AM by angela.

Tell us all about George Pell.

Alright then! Where to start? George Pell is an Australian cardinal who was found guilty of child abuse in a trial in December. The Australian press has not been allowed to report on his trial and conviction until yesterday, when some other charges were dropped. He was sentenced to a jail term yesterday and spent last night in jail in Melbourne. He is apparently the first Catholic cardinal to be jailed for child abuse.

He was the top Catholic churchman in Australia, and then became a very senior man in the Vatican. He always had a high profile amongst the political elite, and a couple of ex-Prime Ministers have written him references for his appeal. Most people found him aloof and uncaring in his manner, but he was no doubt good at his job in the world's catholic hierarchy.

He has always been implicated in covering up child abuse and defending priests who were subsequently convicted of multiple very serious offences. He spent years working in a Diocese now known to have harboured many pedophile priests, and was accused of some interference with young men on church camps and the like. His trial arose from events where he abused two young altar boys in Melbourne's cathedral immediately following a service, twenty years ago, while involved in formulating the church's response to abuse allegations.


No-one can quite believe the circumstances of the offences, so there is some theory that he may be successful on appeal. He was already very unpopular in the public eye, and it will have been difficult to guarantee him a fair trial.


Either way, the damage has been done to the reputation of the Catholic church in Australia, added to the bad week that had already been endured.


Things will keep getting worse until the Vatican structure and culture is completely reformed, and this will take centuries, during which time the Catholic church will continue to shrink in scale and influence

A useful summary.

The other noteworthy point is that given that the abuse problem is so deeply entrenched in the hierarchy and leadership culture, anyone who has spent decades in Catholic leadership has almost inevitably routinely overseen coverups. We know that Pell did that, also that Francis did it in at least one (Argentinian bishop) case, that the German bishop long knew of the coverups and destruction of evidence; also that a number of bishops have been removed from office in the US and elsewhere for their efforts at concealment.

It's a bit like the LDS Q15. Having been bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, general authorities, and then apostles for years if not decades, those men have almost inevitably been involved in abuse cases, coverups, politically-motivated excommunications, false public statements, etc. They are "church broke" in the sense of having had to make profound moral compromises for a very long time.

In a sense such experience is a prerequisite for the highest offices. Does anyone really believe that the Vatican or SLC would elevate a person to the top rank if there was even a possibility that they would recoil in horror upon learning that something despicable had occurred? The need to trust cardinals or apostles in the heat of battle requires that they know what is going on.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that you are right. The fundamental culture needs to change, and that will take a long time. It will also require that some leaders take the fall as scapegoats to demonstrate that the church(es) sincerely intend to reform.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Which is a long-winded way of saying that you are
> right. The fundamental culture needs to change,
> and that will take a long time. It will also
> require that some leaders take the fall as
> scapegoats to demonstrate that the church(es)
> sincerely intend to reform.


Yes, indeed.

Ever since I started visiting this board a few years ago, I've seen spats about protecting the exmo nature of the board, that while all are welcome, this is really a place to discuss exMOism, and that board contributors really *should* try to stay ON TOPIC.

It's one of the most mo-ish behaviors I read here.

Yes, this is an exmo board, there are issues specific to moism that affect mos/exmos specifically, and there are many years of discussion, articles, healing and hope specific to ex-moism.

It is a culture all its own, ...and by god, it *will be* a defended space.

Me? I don't really care which ex- cult-ure traps and abuses people. They have all weaponized human nature. They are evil, if evil exists, and I think looking at them at a macro level, finding the commonalities and differences between the differing apologies, weapons, defenses and attacks, to be enlightening.

The commonalities are amazing. *We will control you in this fashion, with this fear." Specialness, and how each think themselves to be among the privileged few. Outliers, and their evil attacks on [The One Truest Church], whichever one that may be.

The differences, and how they keep ex-groups apart, divide and conquer. "No one else can possibly understand what an exmo must go through, the isolation, shunning, loss of community and family,..." I would respond that the idea of isolation as a weapon is a very, very old one. Lots of references to being exiled, we just call it excommunication, now. There exist today religions where one need not commit suicide due to isolation; the members themselves will do the job for you. People in the US who are maimed and/or killed for having been born who they are. Forced marriages, by ones who woundn't have clue about being a Mormon.

My point being, this board can *seem* as restrictively policed as any ward room. The opening to topics of other religions is a leaving of exmoism, an evolution to the next level of freedom, a view from the outside. Some are ready for it, need to express and find community in that level, and some lay claim to the "place for only newbies" the *cleanliness* of the board.

IMHO, I think newbies need to see that such a realm of freedom exists, in additiin to the love and support they find individually in their particular phase of exiting, the massive resources here, the many, many paths to freedom. What freedom, real freedom, looks like, and how we never stop reaching for it.

Thus, my freedom to make this post. I think newbies find such freedom an amazing thing. ON TOPIC is important, but so is a bigger picture.

HL6TD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ON TOPIC is important, but so is a bigger picture.

I think that discussion of religion in general, not just Mormonism, is considered on topic.

And yes, seeing and analyzing a bigger picture can be very instructive. It may be difficult to see issues that are close to us and easier to see parallels through analysis of similar issues in other venues. For instance, while inside my EV world it was easy to discount the information and opinions of atheists. Here at RfM, reading their posts, which is the most exposure I have had to such discussion, I have realized it is important to be fully informed (preferably from the horse's mouth, so to speak) and to at least think about different ideas and interpretations of information.

RfM has also been instrumental in emphasizing the importance of checking one's sources of information. Personally, that was my usual process anyway, having been taught from youth, fortunately, by an intellectual father to weigh both sides of every question. It's both blessing and curse, as there can be positives on more than one side and then often you're faced with difficult choices of which way to jump.

The best way I visualize the dilemma that some face, including myself in some respects, previously and currently, when it comes to choosing one's values and beliefs and continuing on that same road, is that one can be inside a bubble, often without realizing it, yet it's crucial to step outside and examine/re-evaluate one's choices and beliefs, if it is important to live a fully informed life.

On this board, mostly, all roads in effect lead to Mormonism. To me, there are many topics that pertain to an examination of Mormon teachings. Objective discussions as well as personal accounts from exmos about their experiences inside Mormonism can all be helpful and instructive to questioning Mormons, ex-members and nevermos alike. Which is exactly the stated purpose of RfM, as I understand it.

As several people have mentioned on various threads, discussion of Catholicism is eminently appropriate here, given Mormon teachings and attitudes towards the RCC. And also appropriate due to any similarities in structure, function, attitudes and ethos of Catholicism and Mormonism plus any other faith groups. JWs too call out the RCC as the Whore of Babylon. It is topical and understandable that people in general would be aware of and interested in the RCC, including Mormons and people in other faiths, as well as exmos.

I don't see it as an attack on Catholicism, as some do, but merely religious and formerly religious people exploring the subject of faith beliefs and religious organizations. Very understandable, given our personal experiences with various faith groups.

I think we should spend a lot of time arguing about it.

And then the mods will rightly, or wrongly, deal with it.

"Right or Wrong?"

Part of the title of this thread. Why does it have to be either/or? Or even cast in such a way?

I do understand why some, myself included, think that there are those who seem to be as "attached" to Catholicism as they are "attached" to Mormonism. I don't mean that in such a way as to imply supporting either, but rather, meaning they are not apathetic. I think that is part of the recovery process that goes with leaving mo-ism, and I include myself in that.

I first came to RfM 2 decades ago, though not actively apart of it for most of that time. I came back here with a new screen name 8 years ago. Many of my favorite posters had moved on, seemly having fully detached from it. Some had died.

It's interesting to see how those who are now in the exiting process, do so. Those who are still trying to unwind, do so.

Things are different compared to the late '90s. They are even different from '10

I don't see myself attached to Mo-ism anymore. The "Mo-mind-think" is even gone.

I view the posts on Catholicism, particularly when it has an "anti" feel to it (and I am not talking about the sex abuse scandal. I see that as discussion on criminal behavior and how an organization deals with it) as really symptomatic of still being "attached" to Mo-ism in many ways. I view it as part of the "unwinding of Mo-ism".

I was fortunate that for me, leaving Mormonism was easy peasy. I was the only member. There was no back lash or risk involved. But I know that I am in a minority in that.

Mormonism leaves many wounded, even broken. Catholicism certainly has parallels in that as well.

They are two very different faiths if one really knows them both beyond the surface. They look similar to those who don't know any better, so when I see people kicking at Catholicism (again, not talking about the scandal) I see them ultimately doing a proxy kick at Mormonism.

AFA the sex abuse scandal, I tend to see it the way Bona Dea sees it. In a much broader context about sexual abuse, about abuse of power.

I've said it before. The idea of protecting children and the vulnerable is, historically speaking, newer in not only our culture, but in many ways, still doesn't exists in others. Not even talking about sexual abuse specifically.

The CC, which historically has seen and portrayed itself as having moral authority, has done this to itself.

Will it survive? Hell yea. It's slow to move, but it does move. It's gone thru some horrific times in the past and survived. It will survive this, as well.

There are those who think that Mormonism will go away. It won't. That is a fantasy. It has shown, and continues to show, that it will change.
There are those who think Catholicism will go away. It won't. That, too is a fantasy.

Mormonism is still pretty monolithic in its culture. Catholicism is not. It's very culturally diverse.

Both are, and will continue to contract and that is because religion over-all is contracting.

Follow the scandal, don't follow the scandal. Which ever path is chosen for each given individual, says something illuminating about that person.

I follow it. Why? Because human nature interests me. Human responses and reactions interests me.

In all of human history, abuse of all kinds happens. Violence happens. Suffering happens. Crime happens. Justice is strived for, longed for, hoped for. So is healing.

I've read (I don't know if it's true) that the Dallas Charter, implemented in '02 has done a great deal in addressing clergy abuse in the CC, and that recent cases are down (don't know if that is true) and that what much of the horrors we have heard about are decades old (not an excuse, just factual if it is true).

There certainly was a time when in the field of psychiatry/psychology it was believed that pedophiles could be rehabilitated. CC responded with that in mind. We all know now, that is not true.

I am also of the view that the cover-up, horrible as it is, in many ways was a mis-guided attempt to not so much "protect the organization" in that secular mind-set, but from more from the mind-set of CC theology of protecting the "Bride of Christ".

Some would ask "what's the difference"? Fair question. The fair answer is, it's an attitudinal difference. An intent difference.

I have never heard of the "pontifical secret" until this past weekend. Having read more about it, it puts into a context (unknown to me, at least) what has happened, and why.

The mainstream media, and understandably so in this 24 hour news cycle, doesn't go into in-depth reporting anymore, so people have to do it on their own if they want more than a headline or read more than just a couple of articles.

I agree.with you that much of the.abuse is decades old.I posted a link earlier making that very point. The abuse in Pennsylvania that was discussed earlier took place over 80 years which spreads it out a lot.It isn't as if all those kids were abused last year. It took place over nearly a century.I have read that the abuse is down and I know steps are being taken locally and in other places to protect children.I also agree that views about children have changed. Not too long ago we executed kids, let them marry as children and put them to work in mines. Views on how to deal with pedophiles has changed. Also the Catholic church and the Mormon church are very different.Thank you for writing this.

They stay because most Catholics do not take their church that seriously.

They stay because it is the religion their parents gave them and most do not have the illusions that leaders are "perfect".

Priests who committed crimes need to be punished but Catholicism as an institution will continue.

Elyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They stay because most Catholics do not take their
> church that seriously.
>
> They stay because it is the religion their parents
> gave them and most do not have the illusions that
> leaders are "perfect".
>
> Priests who committed crimes need to be punished
> but Catholicism as an institution will continue.

Very much agree.

I too agree.

The anti-Catholicism of Western Europe and the United States is silly. Catholicism has historically done some very bad things, but that is true of almost any long-lived and powerful organization. Catholics who find value in their church will, and should, continue to worship as they wish.

But the sexual abuse and coverups are different. They are egregious and evil and must be eradicated--and the malefactors should be held accountable. The same applies to the LDS Church, the Boy Scouts, and any other entities that tolerate and conceal the abuse of children and other innocents.

Some do, but that is a very broad generalization.

>>They stay because most Catholics do not take their church that seriously.

I don't agree with that. I grew up a middle-of-the-road Catholic, and my family did take church seriously. We attended church weekly and observed all of the major holidays. We abstained from meat on Fridays. My mom and I went to confession about once a month. We took communion whenever we wished. We prayed before bed every night. We said grace at dinner. I went to Catechism class weekly (religious indoctrination.) We were thoroughly average Catholics.

Some Catholics are far stricter and/or more observant. Some are more lax. As with any religion, there is a range of belief and practice.

I think the ones that stay do so in part *because* they take their church and their beliefs seriously. And the community/family aspect is important as well, as I stated above.

Catholics do tolerate a divergence of thought better than Mormons do. Strict obedience to leadership is not followed by most Catholics. But they still take their religion seriously. It's just a different mind-set, a different way of approaching it.

It is, for Mormons, somewhat difficult to take the religion seriously without taking the leadership seriously. That can sometimes distort our interpretation of other people's religiosity. But you know that.

As I distanced myself from TBM faith (or as close to that as I was, which by normal standards wasn't very close), I hoped for a sort of Catholic adherence to the faith: acceptance of the values and the community, participation in the traditions. But the LDS Church rendered that impossible. Through the excommunications of the September Six and everyone since, the Church made it clear that there is no "middle ground;" there is no New Order Mormonism.

I think they will ultimately regret not having moved in a more "Catholic" direction since literal belief is increasingly impossible given the copious information that is now just a key stroke away.

Most of the Catholics I know are devout. The are also upset by the abuse scandal. No one I know has left. Most Catholics consider the church to be the Body of Christ,ie, the members. It is their church, not the pope's or the big wigs in Rome. Many tend to ignore the heirarchy anyway. It isn't like the Mormon cburch where members hold on to the word of the brethren as if they are speaking for a God in everything.. Personally, I support the right of disillusioned Catholics to go or stay as they please. There is no right way for everyone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 02:43PM by bona dea.

Exactly.

Divergence of thought.

I like that, summer. Good way to put it. That is close to the crux of the issues I've had with the churches I've been associated with, as I've tended to choose the more absolute. If they can keep it simple, as in emphasizing a couple of the most important tenets (love God, love your neighbour perhaps) which capture the essence of the thing it could work better for more people. I have found that it's insisting on many absolutes and losing the concept of each having their own personal walk with God that can cause problems. Judgementalism creeps in and some folks are made to feel less than, not good enough.

I greatly favour the approach of just letting God sort it all out. That way, not even church leaders have to get involved in judging, condemning, calling to repentance and all other activities that get all up in your face and cause so much anxiety, disappointment, broken relationships and disillusionment.

"Come Just As You Are" is a concept that works for me. On my own behalf and regarding others as well.

It's interesting to read about how many Catholics view the church leadership, as separate from their day to day life of faith, if I understand your statements correctly, summer. That is quite different, as you say, from how some denominations/faiths are, as we know, when the leadership acts more like the faith police than shepherds or guides. (Such as with LDS and JWs, as we know). That type of leadership can keep you so intent on busy work, walking the line and being seen to be doing so, keeping checklists of your behaviour and even thoughts (as in Mormon bishops digging around inside your head and questioning your sex life, for example), that the whole thing turns into a never-ending hassle and any beauty or benefits can be lost. It's like being so busy in life, frantically trying to balance on the rapidly escalating 24/7 treadmill that one rarely contemplates the beauty of nature or basks in the pleasure of rhyme.

We've seen that lately on the board here with the recent discussions of the new Sunday schedule. Instead of cutting down the 3 hr block at church and leaving it at that, LDS leaders have to reach into your private dwelling and maintain their strangehold on your Sunday activities, like they think they have a right to tell you what to do even during your off hours. Well, we know they think that. Bishop interviews, anyone? I was thinking yesterday about what a shock, first of all, it was during my first bishop's interview as an adult 'convert' when he asked about my intimate life, and second, about what a dope I was that I actually thought I had to answer him - and I did so. It's embarrassing to recall being so unquestioningly malleable. Fundamentalist-type religious belief can groom you that way, where the leaders exert way more unholy influence on congregants than is usual in more mainstream belief systems.

Re the RCC, maybe it's a case of non-Catholics seeing the church from the top down, i.e. the Pope is a very visible part of the church, as is the priestly hierarchy, whereas regular Catholics see it from the inside of a faith community in which they are more free than outsiders may think to choose their own path. It's just that the main tenets seem so rigid, at least to many outsiders, such as celibacy for priests and nuns, obviously, as well as the absolute injunction against abortion, confession to a priest (which can be a difficult concept to wrap your head around if you're not used to it) and the other well known Catholic-related pieces which can seem strange to outsiders, such as rosaries, incense, the attire of the clergy, the beliefs about the Pope's position, the visions (of some), the strict stance against homosexuality and other social issues on which the RCC weighs in. The experiences of the Catholic in the pew are not spoken of often in mainstream news, for instance.

My best friend believes fervently in the Baptist beliefs which she was brought up in but with her it is between herself and the God in whom she believes. She doesn't proselytize or judge. It's a unique experience for me to be in her presence. She doesn't hold forth with any rules that I'm breaking. So rare, in my experience. So restful.

(Sorry if I'm off topic and all over the place. Just a bunch of thoughts all thrown together. Hope some of it makes sense).

It makes a great deal of sense, Nightingale.
Your last part about how Catholics view their community and their leadership vs how Mormons do it is something I have noticed, too.

Because of the hierarchical male structures of both, it's easy to assume they run and interact with their people the same way. They don't

Years ago I made that same assumptions. Many years after I had left Mormonism, I made friends with devout Catholics. In a fairly short amount of time I realized that although the two faiths appear similar, in most ways, including structure, they different.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2019 08:19PM by angela.

Yes, Catholicism tends to be a bottom-up church where the community takes on a greater importance than the hierarchy. I agree with Bona Dea that Catholics see their fellow parish members as being a part of the "body of Christ." The members *are* the church.

This can create some rather odd views of the hierarchy. For instance, I've seen Catholics go all fan-girly or fan-boy about anything Pope-related ("Ooh! My friend who traveled to Rome brought back a rosary for me that was personally blessed by the Pope!") But at the same time they will feel free to disagree with something the Pope said or to talk about their favorite vs. least favorite Popes.

Catholics tend to take a personal ownership of their faith which I think helps many to retain a set of beliefs even if they choose to leave the church.

They may fancy themselves the body of Christ. Why not? Sometimes he is a wafer! (Joke!) However, that body is full of fleas. They will pick off the fleas but are not willing to undergo a full immersion de-flea dunk. (Just like the baptism process!) (Joke!)

Sure all priests and hierarchy didn't realize this was going on, but I must say they had to be colossally dense or willfully ignorant IMO. They are complicit IMO.

The takeaway from this thread to me is that Catholics do their own thing. Fine. I think it is clear that for many, their nonchalant bottom up involvement puts children second when it comes to their version of faith community . In the end, some will make excuses and many will do nothing but continue to enable the whole obvious flawed environment that attracts this behavior. They are only going to do what they have to do because in the end, well, costumes and rituals are fun.

>>They are only going to do what they have to do because in the end, well, costumes and rituals are fun.

That comes off as overly flippant. I think the membership is very distressed about the abuse scandals. The church that they trusted for so many years has let them down badly. Some will choose to leave and some will push for reforms from within. It would surprise me greatly if the American bishops fail to act in the future.

It was intended to be flippant. I'm disgusted at what religion gets away with and how people are being used defending it.

I'm not buying the "everybody else does it too" and "we're fixing it" excuses. Reforms are slow while children are being encouraged to trust religious leaders every day.

Mormons are also trying to reform, leave or believe. I don't understand how people in other religions are fine with bashing Mormonism but not their own sacred cow. It's all matter of stepping back far enough to see the similarities.

The Catholic church is hardly a sacred cow to me. Honestly, I don't think the North American Catholic membership will ever see the religious (meaning, priests, brothers, and nuns,) in quite the same way ever again. They will never again have that level of trust. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Parents need to exercise extreme caution when it comes to the well-being of their children. No one gets a free pass.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Catholic church is hardly a sacred cow to me.
> Honestly, I don't think the North American
> Catholic membership will ever see the religious
> (meaning, priests, brothers, and nuns,) in quite
> the same way ever again. They will never again
> have that level of trust. And I don't think that's
> a bad thing. Parents need to exercise extreme
> caution when it comes to the well-being of their
> children. No one gets a free pass.

Summer, do you know if the Dallas Charter that the N.A bishops put in place in '02 has been effective in any way?

Angela, I have read.that abuse was.much more.common in past decades. Whether that is related.to the Dallas Charter, I.don't know and I don't have a source.other than a link I gave.stating that.I believe it wasnfrom Pscychology Todag

I don't know, Angela.

dagny: "I don't understand how people in other religions are fine with bashing Mormonism but not their own sacred cow."

It's easier to see fault in others and not in ourselves or the things of which we approve and like. :)

I have checked myself on this during my sojourn at RfM. Due to this very reason I try to be cognizant of what I disagree with and/or dislike in the LDS and JW faiths, as well as with EVs, compared with what I support. It's a reason to be less than adamant about what is or is not true, correct, right or good, especially when it comes to religion.

The best way, I've found, is to keep it to personal experiences. I don't expound on what the Mormon leaders have or have not done or said as I don't know enough about it. I was only associated for three years and speak mainly of the events I personally went through and the Mormons I knew and their reactions. When I talk of my JW years, similarly, it's about my own interactions, experiences and feelings. I mostly refer only to the call for obedience and submission to the leaders, both in the local congregations and especially to those at the top of the organization.

However, I think it's OK to have a general opinion about what's going on elsewhere. Discussing that, I find, can have the effect of stimulating the little grey cells to ponder parallels with one's own faith. That is difficult though, which I think is the answer to why it's not automatic. For many people, once you believe something it's not a matter you keep revisiting to check and verify. Too, you may just not get a connection or parallel, for various reasons.

I know you know all that, dagny. I'm just thinking it through for my own benefit.

As an aside, I don't consider our discussions here to be "bashing" Mormonism, although I know that many Mormons and even exmos and nevermos see it that way. I think if we are speaking of our own experiences then it's understandable, and fine, to state what occurred and to say how we feel about it, even if it brings unsavoury elements to light. And if someone is particularly emotional about certain aspects of Mormonism, or whichever religious tradition they are mentioning, that too is understandable, due to the fraught nature of the topics and the often dramatic ill effects on one's life of religious belief and faith experiences.


dagny: "It's all matter of stepping back far enough to see the similarities."

Yes. That is the trick all right. Sounds simple, doesn't it. And obvious. Yet, not the first action many take, for multiple, and understandable reasons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 02:44PM by Nightingale.

Agree.There is.much more than that.Catholics are bashing the abuse and coverup.Your flippantcy isn't helpful, accurate or funny . Your disgust with abuse is certainly justified.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 02:15PM by bona dea.

You know what would make me happy? A good ole historical Jesus thread where we debate the benefits of group think and authority fallacies.

Can someone name an organization that is known for not protecting children and also has established themselves as a moral authority?

I'm both pissed and amazed at some of the responses here.

For the record. I blame the leaders of every organization that places the good of the organization above the good the people that that organization serves. I especially blame those who do so from a bully pulpit of moral superiority.

And this matters for Mormonism doubly. Because while it has been pointed out that Catholicism has evolved beyond ridiculous fandom of it's leaders Mormonism hasn't. Hell Russ is the driest most dull Mormon president I can remember and he's talked about like he's Jehovah.

So can't we all agree that mass cover-up of the abuse of children and women in the Catholic church is a black eye on the same level of the 2-3 hundred years of witch hunts inspired by Innocent VIII. This goes way beyond the indulgence scandal that inspired Martin Luther to kick off the reformation. Although that did inspire the Thirty Years' War which killed over 3,000,000 people. This might raise to be on the same level as endorsing the Crusades, which if everyone will recall resulted in the deaths of over 1,000,000 people. I guess the Genocide of the Americas wasn't directly the fault of the Catholics, I just wish that every time an American was killed the murderer didn't yell out for God and country.

Dammit Catholic church, for everything that you have given this world you sure have screwed it over to give it those benefits. It would be great if I could admit that all of the atrocities are in the past. I just can't.

Religion proves constantly that it cannot be trusted with the souls of humanity. And that's what religion is for in the first place.

Just my two cents.

jacob Wrote:

> Thirty Years' War which killed over 3,000,000 people >....Crusades... deaths of over 1,000,000

I think organized religions are the biggest source of evil, wars and death there is.

> Religion proves constantly that it cannot be trusted with the souls of humanity. And that's what religion is for in the first place.

Agree, not trustworthy. Thanks for your post, Jacob.

The thing that puzzles me is that as far back as I remember there have been proven cases of sexual abuse in the Catholic church, many of them highly publicized. I haven't been following the latest news on this because it seemed like just a repeat of the same old story. So is the big difference now the Pope finally confessing it's a problem and condemning it? Is it like the reaction in the Mormons world if one of the church presidents announced, "Yeah, all those awful things we've been accused of are absolutely true?" Is it that Catholics can't ignore it anymore?