In recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion on this board of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. The two articles below add additional perspective to that problem: in short, there has for decades been widespread molestation, torture and murder in Catholic orphanages and homes for unwed mothers as well.

I have been thinking about why the Church is so much more maleficent than other organizations and have reached some tentative conclusions. Comments and corrections are welcome.

The first characteristic of a systemically and chronically abusive institution is the establishment of a superior class of human beings. This would include the hierarchy from priests upward, men who supposedly represent God and offer guidance that ordinary mortals cannot; but it also includes nuns and others who are permanently separated from, and again spiritually superior to, normal people.

The next characteristic would be the imposition of conditions that put great stress on those "superior" leaders. Celibacy would register here, since it precludes natural human connections and releases, and so too would expectations of greater intellectual, emotional and moral discipline. One can only imagine the combination of inadequacy, loneliness, frustration, and anger some priests and nuns must live with for much of their lives.

Perhaps the most important trait, however, is the inculcation in believers of the notion that these troubled leaders--often lost in their own Jacobian struggles with God--must be obeyed. Catholics, and particularly youth, are taught constantly to seek the guidance of, and extend unlimited trust to, the clergy. Meanwhile adults are trained to entrust their children to the priestly class and to surrender their moral judgment to the church.

Next, the institution must value its reputation highly since that precludes the acknowledgement of serious crises. In the Catholic case, that means that the Vatican, Cardinals, and others cannot admit that their underlings committed sins and crimes because that would undermine the claims to divine guidance and moral authority. Coverup becomes a political necessity.

The final prerequisite for an egregiously abusive organization is the passage of time. For virtually every man who rises through the hierarchy will over the decades have confronted sexual and physical abuse either personally or as an embarrassment that must be concealed. Eventually everyone who is a bishop, an archbishop, a cardinal, or pope is aware of the problem and complicit either directly in coverups or indirectly through allowing those coverups to occur within his bailiwick.

Once the leadership corps is compromised, reform becomes nearly impossible because no one's hands are clean. The pope is inhibited since he cannot muster a strong faction who are both without sin personally and willing to risk the church's reputation. So someone like Francis arises and takes on such liberal causes as tolerating homosexuality, treating women more like human beings, etc., but dares not confront ubiquitous priestly abuse.

Ultimately it may take outside forces--a coordinated international legal campaign, for instance, or a long series of independent police actions--to open the archives, punish the malefactors, and dismantle the institutional scaffolding on which pervasive abuse and coverup rest. Heaven knows what will remain of the Catholic Church then.

In the meantime, I recommend the two articles below for those who have strong stomachs. You might also google the St. Joseph's Orphanage scandal to double check the reporting since the Buzzfeed story is especially nauseating.



North America
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs


Ireland:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2018 05:57AM by Lot's Wife.

And one of the bigly problems is catholic church ownership of hospitals.
Recently a woman in Ireland died because of them.

COMMENT: As good Catholics, I think what we need to do is consider the pedophile culture of the Catholic church to be a deviant sect of Catholicism; i.e. as a kind of separate religion. After all, these are not mainstream priests, but outliers, in a context of the good and noble spiritual service of the vast majority of priests. By such consideration, there is no need to associate such evils with the *real* Catholic church; and certainly no need to suggest that such evils are institutionally associated with Catholic dogma, doctrines, policies and practice. We thus can maintain our respect and faith in Catholicism uninterrupted by the reality of its results. :)

LW stated:

"Once the leadership corps is compromised, reform becomes nearly impossible because no one's hands are clean. The pope is inhibited since he cannot muster a strong faction who are both without sin personally and willing to risk the church's reputation. So someone like Francis arises and takes on such liberal causes as tolerating homosexuality, treating women more like human beings, etc., but dares not confront ubiquitous priestly abuse."

COMMENT: Maybe we should extend *your* words "Once the leadership corps is compromised . . ." to [O]nce the *doctrinal core* has been shown to produce evil results, "reform becomes nearly impossible because no one's hands are clean." If that hard stance is appropriate, as you perhaps imply, why not apply it to Islam!? What is the difference between a religion being compromised by its leadership, and a religion being compromised by the implementation of its core doctrines?

Three points, Henry.

First, I'm not sure it is fair to say that "evil" is a product of Islam's "core doctrine. Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have "evil" doctrines, if interpreted literally, that include genocide. All three religions have at times implemented that "evil" as well as going through periods in which they exhibited more positive values. So it isn't clear to me that the doctrine must be read in a way that is "evil," or more evil than other faiths. But in any case, the nature of Islam is beside the point I'm offering for consideration here.

Second, and more central to my argument, Catholicism is distinct from Christianity and Islam. Islam and Christianity are diverse bodies with no central organization, so scandals do not taint the entire faiths. But Catholicism is an independent organization that, through its claims to divine authority and guidance, becomes culpable for the baneful activities encouraged by its institutions and rules. It is responsible for its sins in a way that no other body is in overall Christianity or in Islam.

Third, the institutional form of the Catholic Church gives it a greater incentive to reform in order to preserve its reputation and power. With direct authority comes direct culpability, and now the chickens have come home bearing an existential threat. The church must reform if it wants to survive in anything like its present state. That is why the question of "dirty hands" applies uniquely to the RC Church: in Christianity and in Islam and Buddhism, there is no one whose manual hygiene matters.

The Catholics created their monstrosity and will be crippled by it if they don't figure out how to tame it. That seems clear. What I wanted to do in my OP was start a dialogue about WHY the church is so deeply implicated in the patterns of abuse and, indirectly, ask how many of the contributing factors are shared by Mormonism.

I think institutional inertia is at odds with the evolution of law. What is lawful will not always be lawful. Standards shift. That government is outpacing religious structures is a good sign if you’re a secularist.

The latest hubbub with Sam is yet another sign that the secular world is leaving TSCC in the dust. This isn’t Nam, Russel. There are rules.

I think you have compiled a good list of contributing factors. There is a lot there to think about. Thank you.


I would add more about societal privilege as an additional factor. Privileges include:

Tax exemptions (Laws protect religion's claim to be viewed as primarily charitable with very little accountability.)

Automatic respect (No other group of organizations to my knowledge has been granted such automatic respect by society with no obligation to prove their claims. Though much of history, you could be killed for saying anything against the dominant religion.)

Secrecy (Confessions of crimes handled internally and not reported)


This air of privilege contributes to being able to justify abuse.

I agree with all of this, Dagny.

I almost used the word "secrecy" but decided to keep the focus on reputation, although the coverups are also part of the picture.

And privilege, meaning special social and political status, is indeed huge. The Catholic Church dominated Europe for centuries and still has special status, almost invulnerability, in many parts of that continent as well as in many US states. With a church's power structure intertwines with the state's powers, transparency and reform become that much more unlikely.

Of course now we are branching into an indirect discussion of Mormonism--the intersection of church and state power and the advantages that brings--which is all good. I do think some of the other characteristics of Catholicism do NOT apply with as much force to Mormonism, which is why the problems of abuse and coverup (this is as much question as statement) are somewhat less severe at this point in history.

Bless you, my child! Say three Hail Marys and tap one Baryshnikov 8-count.

"First, I'm not sure it is fair to say that "evil" is a product of Islam's "core doctrine. Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have "evil" doctrines, if interpreted literally, that include genocide. All three religions have at times implemented that "evil" as well as going through periods in which they exhibited more positive values. So it isn't clear to me that the doctrine must be read in a way that is "evil," or more evil than other faiths. But in any case, the nature of Islam is beside the point I'm offering for consideration here."

COMMENT: No doubt the idea of a religion's "core doctrine" is difficult to pin down. But to my way of thinking, a "core doctrine" is one that if someone disbelieved it, they would place themselves out of the deep-rooted historical mainstream of the faith. Certainly, a core doctrine of both Christianity and Islam is that they represent the true and exclusive "way of life" for all human beings, with varying degrees of views as to the appropriate "enforcement" on others. It is this core doctrine of exclusiveness, coupled with their respective scriptural and prophetic manifestations, that "produces" the violent evil that has application to both at one time or another.

My suggestion here, and the point in bringing up Islam again, is that you are perhaps involved in a double standard. In the prior post you suggested that we view violent Islam as a deviant kind of "separate religion," which view I criticized. Here you point out a deviant practice within Catholicism, but instead of looking at this behavior as something to be dismissed as not part of mainstream Catholicism, you (rightfully) look for explanations within. My suggestion is that you do the same for Islam. Violence and intolerance as manifested in Islam is not to be explained as a radical outlier, but as a problem born from within. Anyway, that was my point.
_________________________________________________

"Second, and more central to my argument, Catholicism is distinct from Christianity and Islam. Islam and Christianity are diverse bodies with no central organization, so scandals do not taint the entire faiths. But Catholicism is an independent organization that, through its claims to divine authority and guidance, becomes culpable for the baneful activities encouraged by its institutions and rules. It is responsible for its sins in a way that no other body is in overall Christianity or in Islam."

COMMENT: O.K. I admit that institutionalism is an important distinction. However, I do not think we should allow the relatively non-institutional character of Islam, or its locally institutional character, to motive a claim that there are no fundamental core doctrines that when applied and interpreted produce evil outcomes. After all, Islam has equally strong claims to divine and prophetic authority as does Christianity, and it is precisely these claims that motivate the violent element.
________________________________________________

"Third, the institutional form of the Catholic Church gives it a greater incentive to reform in order to preserve its reputation and power. With direct authority comes direct culpability, and now the chickens have come home bearing an existential threat. The church must reform if it wants to survive in anything like its present state. That is why the question of "dirty hands" applies uniquely to the RC Church: in Christianity and in Islam and Buddhism, there is no one whose manual hygiene matters."

COMMENT: Yes, institutionalism does render a religion more susceptible to reform.
_____________________________________________

"The Catholics created their monstrosity and will be crippled by it if they don't figure out how to tame it. That seems clear. What I wanted to do in my OP was start a dialogue about WHY the church is so deeply implicated in the patterns of abuse and, indirectly, ask how many of the contributing factors are shared by Mormonism."

COMMENT: Yes, I get your intent, and I am not saying it is invalid. You are playing upon Catholic institutionalism, in doctrine and practice, as both the seat of the problem and the vehicle for reform. Fine and good. All I am pointing out is that the character of Islamic terrorism, as being also rooted in its doctrines and authority structures, does not change simply because there is no clear-cut institution by which society or the Church itself can seek reformation.

Archdiocese of the Seattle
710 9th Ave. Seattle, WA 98104





Statement of Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, August 17, 2018
Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report
With the recent allegations of sexual abuse committed by Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, former
Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and the release of a Grand Jury Report involving several dioceses
in Pennsylvania, the tragedy of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is once again brought to light.
The sexual abuse of a minor is an intrinsic moral evil and a crime. Anyone responsible for such
an act or for shielding those who do, including bishops and other Church leaders, must be held
accountable for their actions. I join with oth- er bishops from throughout Washington and the
United States in expressing our sincere shame and remorse for the incredible harm these crimes have
caused the victims and their families.
The Catholic Church in Western Washington continues its focus on providing a safe environment for
all minors and vulnerable adults in our care. Special procedures, training and reporting protocols
were adopted in 1990. Our policies, training and procedures are re- viewed frequently and have been
updated several times.
To report any suspicion of abuse by any Church personnel, please contact local law enforcement. In
addition, anyone who has knowledge of sexual abuse or misconduct by a member of the clergy, an
employee or volunteer of the Archdiocese of Seattle is urged to call the archdiocesan hotline at
1-800-446-7762.
As Catholics, we believe that every life is sacred. Each person is created in the image and
likeness of our loving God. Violence and abuse of any kind are unacceptable, and we have a serious
responsibility to work towards their end. Together, we must do everything we possibly can to
protect children.

Henry's observation is that I apply a double standard to Catholicism and Islam. I think and hope that is wrong, as I'll explain in four points.

First, I do not think violent Islam is a deviant form of the Islam; I believe that it is an organic appendage of the faith. My purpose in separating out the various strands of Islam was not to excuse anything but to permit analysis of each. To do otherwise makes it hard to understand and counteract the abominable phenomenon of Islamic terror.

Second, I don't think I am proposing a double standard. I do not, in your words, believe that core Catholic doctrine dictates a pattern of sexual abuse and coverup; I believe those atrocities stem mainly from the institutional structure of the RCC. Conversely I do not believe that xenophobic violence is part of core Islamic doctrine for the reasons that most of the violent heritage is common to the Biblical religions, for most of its history most of Islam has not been violent, etc. In both the Catholic and the Moslem traditions the violence and molestation are not "core doctrines" but byproducts, the result of the interplay between institutions, culture, and yes religion.

Third, it would indeed be possible to do an institutional analysis of Islamic terror. The results, however, would look very different from those for Catholicism. In Islam we have a global religion, most of which has usually been tolerant and peaceful. Over the last couple hundred years this pattern has been broken by the intrusion of imperial power, the drawing of bad national boundaries and the consequent polarizing struggles, the Moslem role in defeating the USSR, and the expansion of Saudi and Deobandi influence.

In other words, I think we would see something closer to the adoption of revolutionary ideologies, or revolutionary forms of ideologies, by people (who feel they are) unfairly oppressed by outsiders. If the Koran did not include passages favorable to violence and terrorism, the activists would have reached for totalitarianism (as the secularists behind Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt actually did). To that extent, terror is not a "core doctrine" of Islam--although that does not matter on a moral or geopolitical plane.

Finally, my hope in starting this thread was that by enumerating the factors and dynamics that produce the appalling pattern of Catholic abuse and coverup, perhaps we could shed some light on the LDS Church's profound troubles with sexual abuse. I'll try to show how in a brief following post.

n/t



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 07:45PM by Lot's Wife.

First, I do not think violent Islam is a deviant form of the Islam; I believe that it is an organic appendage of the faith. My purpose in separating out the various strands of Islam was not to excuse anything but to permit analysis of each. To do otherwise makes it hard to understand and counteract the abominable phenomenon of Islamic terror.

COMMENT: Although I do not know what you mean by "organic appendage," it certainly strikes me as another form of segregation. In any event, I am perfectly fine making distinctions within a religious group for purposes of understanding and analysis. My objection is only when such an attempt is aimed at preserving respect for the religion as a whole by extrapolating the objectionable consequences of the religion's doctrines and policies.
_______________________________________

Second, I don't think I am proposing a double standard. I do not, in your words, believe that core Catholic doctrine dictates a pattern of sexual abuse and coverup; I believe those atrocities stem mainly from the institutional structure of the RCC.

COMMENT: What about the core doctrines of male dominance, priesthood authority, and unquestioned obedience? Moreover, some people might argue that celibacy is a core doctrine of Catholicism. Don't such doctrines lend themselves to abuse? Notwithstanding, I admit that objectionable effects do not need to come from core doctrines. ________________________________________

Conversely I do not believe that xenophobic violence is part of core Islamic doctrine for the reasons that most of the violent heritage is common to the Biblical religions, for most of its history most of Islam has not been violent, etc. In both the Catholic and the Moslem traditions the violence and molestation are not "core doctrines" but byproducts, the result of the interplay between institutions, culture, and yes religion.

COMMENT: First, Islamic violence is not primarily xenophobic; it is not based upon fear. It is based upon a doctrinal mandate of superiority and dominance, and a distain for contrary Western values. Second, history is beside the point, because there are different cultural settings in play that affect how a religion's core doctrines will manifest themselves, or play out. The fact that in some epics Islamic cultures have not been violent, or that in some Christian historical contexts violence has broken out, does not suggest that the violence is not a response to a core doctrine. Moreover, the fact that there are other causal influences does not help. The question is whether "but-for" the entrenched Islamic view of its divine status and prophetic mission, would violence occur. The answer, in my view, is no. It is driven by an underlying core belief that its mission and destiny is to dominant the world.
_____________________________________

Third, it would indeed be possible to do an institutional analysis of Islamic terror. The results, however, would look very different from those for Catholicism. In Islam we have a global religion, most of which has usually been tolerant and peaceful. Over the last couple hundred years this pattern has been broken by the intrusion of imperial power, the drawing of bad national boundaries and the consequent polarizing struggles, the Moslem role in defeating the USSR, and the expansion of Saudi and Deobandi influence.

In other words, I think we would see something closer to the adoption of revolutionary ideologies, or revolutionary forms of ideologies, by people (who feel they are) unfairly oppressed by outsiders. If the Koran did not include passages favorable to violence and terrorism, the activists would have reached for totalitarianism (as the secularists behind Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt actually did). To that extent, terror is not a "core doctrine" of Islam--although that does not matter on a moral or geopolitical plane.

COMMENT: I don't mean to suggest that explanations are simplistic. What I am suggesting is that when conditions and contexts are otherwise in place, a core doctrines of divine superiority, divine subjugation, and divine mandated intolerance, can manifest itself in violence.
________________________________________________

Finally, my hope in starting this thread was that by enumerating the factors and dynamics that produce the appalling pattern of Catholic abuse and coverup, perhaps we could shed some light on the LDS Church's profound troubles with sexual abuse. I'll try to show how in a brief following post.

COMMENT: I am sorry I interrupted that motivation. But, let's be clear. In both cases, core doctrines related to priesthood authority, male dominance, and divinely mandated obedience are at work.

O.K. I will shut-up.

No worries, Henry. I'll reply to some, but not all, of your points.



----------------
My objection is only when such an
> attempt is aimed at preserving respect for the
> religion as a whole by extrapolating the
> objectionable consequences of the religion's
> doctrines and policies.

I view violent Islam as part of a spectrum of Islam just as polygamy is part of an LDS spectrum. I am not trying to isolate terror as a way of preserving respect for Islam; I am trying to understand the various branches as I might the various Mormon sects or the various branches of Protestantism. But I'd add, parenthetically, that I do respect Islam as a great culture just like Rome or India or Christianity or China, all of which are great in both good and bad ways.



--------------------
> COMMENT: What about the core doctrines of male
> dominance, priesthood authority, and unquestioned
> obedience? Moreover, some people might argue that
> celibacy is a core doctrine of Catholicism. Don't
> such doctrines lend themselves to abuse?
> Notwithstanding, I admit that objectionable
> effects do not need to come from core doctrines.

Sure, patriarchy, priesthood, and obedience can be portrayed as "core doctrines" as well as "core practices" or "core institutions." I don't think that lexical change would affect my analysis, though.


________________________________________
> COMMENT: First, Islamic violence is not primarily
> xenophobic; it is not based upon fear.

I believe that empirically xenophobia almost always stems from or is exacerbated by, fear.


------------
[Islamic violence} is based
> upon a doctrinal mandate of superiority and
> dominance, and a distain for contrary Western
> values.

The founding doctrines of Islam were defined when there wasn't a "West."



---------------------
The question is
> whether "but-for" the entrenched Islamic view of
> its divine status and prophetic mission, would
> violence occur. The answer, in my view, is no.

The answer, in my view, is "yes."

It's a typical pattern that has occurred in many places at many times. People rationally or irrationally fear domination from others, rally around their particular flag, and act violently. The colors on the banner have some influence over the particulars but aren't that significant in the larger view.



-----------------
It
> is driven by an underlying core belief that its
> mission and destiny is to dominant the world.

When a society is stable and content, these beliefs don't provide much motivation. When society is unstable and fearful, the aggressive xenophobia emerges. Functionally, empirically, asserting a global mission often goes along with deep insecurity.



_____________________________________
> COMMENT: I don't mean to suggest that explanations
> are simplistic. What I am suggesting is that when
> conditions and contexts are otherwise in place, a
> core doctrines of divine superiority, divine
> subjugation, and divine mandated intolerance, can
> manifest itself in violence.

Yes.



________________________________________________
> COMMENT: I am sorry I interrupted that motivation.
> But, let's be clear. In both cases, core
> doctrines related to priesthood authority, male
> dominance, and divinely mandated obedience are at
> work.

No problem, Henry. Good discussion.

LW, I don't think you apply a double standard either.

I also don't see what "But...Islam is worse!" has to do with the culpability and responsibility of the catholic church when it comes to the well-documented massive problems it has in this area.

I mean, ok: let's assume Islam is "worse." Does that make the catholic church any less culpable or responsible?

Nope.

I thought you made your case logically and eloquently.

“I also don't see what "But...Islam is worse!" has to do with the culpability and responsibility of the catholic church when it comes to the well-documented massive problems it has in this area.”

I believe on a recent thread about Islam you brought up some of the atrocities the Catholic Church – which I interpreted as a “yeah but what about the Catholic Church.” I think you conclude with “what about that?”

So, I agree One doesn’t reduce the culpability of the other, but I think that was pretty much the argument you attempted to make with respect to Islam on the prior thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 09:41PM by jay.

I'm not sure which other thread you're referring to...

But if it's the one I think it is, somebody had said something like "Islam is the worst religion because it does x!" And I pointed out that other religions, like catholicism, also do x. So using x as a reason to call Islam "the worst" was a bit silly.

To be clear, I think all religions are "the worst." I would be quite happy if they all went away. I agree some are "worse" than others, but very often the comparisons made (as above) aren't well thought-out or reasonable, they're mostly "it's not my religion, so it's bad." When that person's religion does many of the same things as the one they think is "bad." I like to point out that kind of poor reasoning when it's used, hopefully it gets people thinking about their own religion/beliefs.

I'm not promoting Islam here, or making any excuses for it (or the actions of some of its followers). It's backwards, superstitious nonsense. So is catholicism. So is mormonism. So are all of 'em :)

I described five problems that inform Catholic sex abuse, torture, and coverup. They were



---------------
1) The establishment of a superior class of people.

Catholicism does this with lifetime appointments of people who are supposed to have bat phones to God. The LDS church sets people up as superior for the duration of their terms as bishops and stake presidents, most of whose prestige diminishes after their removal from office. These might be considered the "temporarily superior" class.

There is also, though, a permanently superior class comprising the core families. Joseph Bishop was such an insider, so he could abuse over decades and his sins were concealed by the church. On this metric, therefore, the LDS church is likely to have a lesser form of the Catholic Church's "untouchable" class.



--------------
2) The imposition of stress on those "untouchable" and "superior" clergy.

The Catholic Church does this through celibacy, the isolation of clergy from their families, unreasonable expectations, etc. The LDS church applies stress to all its members--more than on the Catholic laity--but not as much pressure over the course of the clergy's lifetime. This might imply that the average LDS leader is somewhat less likely to molest innocent people.



-------------
3) The surrender of personal moral authority to the church.

Both the Catholic and the LDS churches insist that laity surrender their consciences to their religious leaders. My impression is that the extent of the subjugation is greater in Catholicism since the "superior" class is permanently separated from the body of the church.

To recapitulate, the combination of 1), 2), and 3) suggests that sexual and physical abuse by LDS clergy is probably less extensive than in the Catholic Church. That is, however, just a hunch. It would help me to hear how others feel about the matter.



-----------------
4) The determination of the church to protect its reputation.

Here I am not sure the LDS Church is more reasonable than the Catholic Church. Salt Lake City guards its reputation jealously and will ruin individuals and families if it is in the church's interests, so I'd surmise the two faiths are comparable on this dimension. Both are sociopathic institutions.



------------------
5) The passage of time.

In the Catholic church this means that a huge volume of abuses and coverups over decades or centuries has compromised almost all the senior clergy. My guess is that something like this has happened in the LDS church although it is more conceivable that some leaders still have clean hands because they have more normal family and social lives, their positions are generally not permanent, and there have not been that many Mormon orphanages and schools overseen by sadists. If the proportion of implicated Mormons is lower, the potential for reform may be somewhat higher.



---------------
Conclusion

The hypothesis I offer for consideration is that the LDS and the Catholic Churches suffer from similar institutional handicaps. Both produce a superior priestly class to whom individuals and families are supposed to surrender their own moral judgment. That is the stuff of totalitarianism, both religious and political.

It is possible that the rot is less pervasive in Mormonism because the priestly class does not live with as much constant torment as in the Catholic class and hence isn't as likely to molest, torture, or on rare occasions kill their followers. The determination to hide scandals is probably as pronounced in Mormonism as it is in Catholicism, and the LDS church may at this point be better at coverups since most of its troubles arise within a legal jurisdiction--the United States--that the CBO and its attorneys understand.

But I would surmise that the LDS church has a bit more scope for reform if it is willing address that possibility. I am not sure they will, however, since although the bishops and stake presidents and mission presidents may in general be less implicated in major sins, the "core families" seem determined to resist any challenge to their prerogatives. That is what Joseph Bishop represents to me: the Mormon version of Catholic "untouchables."

I’ll add to the fray, Lottie.

Historically, Canon Law, was superior to Civil Law. Henry VIII made it clear that in the Henrycian Reformation, the State would be superior to the Church. Eventually, English Common Law would form the basis for much of public laws in the Anglophone world abolishing the older, “Universal” canon law. However, Catholicism is basically a Middle-Ages system. Part of its appear for many, including myself, is its timelessness. For me, a Latin mass in an old stone building connects me with the “Saints of All Times and Places.” (I guess that includes the vile sinners, like Hie, too :).

The first part of any modern reform movements, within the Catholic faith, have to acknowledge and promote the supremacy of civil laws designed to protect the vulnerable who have been brutally abused. The cloak of secrecy based on Canon Law (that the issue is between the individual and confessor) must be reframed that Canon Law will not supersede Civil Law where Civil Laws have been broken. A member of the clergy can hear Confession, but must immediately report any law-breaking to the appropriate Civil Authorities.

The next steps have to include massive transparency measures. For example, in my local Catholic Church, restrooms entrances are monitored by video. FBI fingerprint background checks need to be mandatory for any person working with the young or other vulnerable persons. (I have done this with my church congregation because I work with teens. It is mandated by our church council.) Church offices, classrooms, etc can be retrofitted with privacy glass where there is a sense of privacy, but anything too unusual will not go unnoticed.

Finally, there has to be an acknowledgement that in St. Paul’s writings, he recommends voluntary celibacy. Being married is not a guarantee that sexual abuse won’t happen, but, living without sex or even thinking about it, is unrealistic for most men and women.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 08:48PM by BYU Boner.

BYUB writes: "For me, a Latin mass in an old stone building connects me with the 'Saints of All Times and Places.' (I guess that includes the vile sinners, like Hie, too :).


-----
As you know, I love music. During my youth as a Mormon, I came to associate certain forms of religious music--everything from early catholic stuff through Gregorian chants to cantatas--with feelings of oppression. Mine was an arbitrary repulsion but deeply entrenched, and the prejudice stayed with me--perhaps even deepened--as I disengaged from the church.

It marked real emotional progress when I found myself gradually shedding those biases and finding I was able to enjoy, for example, Bach's organ works. The same is true of my attitude towards grand religious architecture and ceremony although I still have some trouble with things that function as ways to encourage individual subordination and hence unhealthy deference to authority.

But yes, it is nice ultimately to see and hear art as art rather than as the bonds of emotional control. That is true freedom.

Have you heard of the evil tritone?

Religion’s influence on art.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 09:37PM by jay.

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you heard of the evil tritone?
>
> Religion’s influence on art.

Could you please explain, so that those of us who are not musicians, or knowledgeable in music history, can understand how "evil tritone" fits in with Catholic atrocities?

Thank you!

It doesn't relate to catholic atrocities.

A tritone is somewhat dissonant, and centuries ago was usually avoided for that reason especailly in religious music.
See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone

"The tritone is a restless interval, classed as a dissonance in Western music from the early Middle Ages through to the end of the common practice period. This interval was frequently avoided in medieval ecclesiastical singing because of its dissonant quality. The first explicit prohibition of it seems to occur with the development of Guido of Arezzo's hexachordal system, who suggested that rather than make B♭ a diatonic note, the hexachord be moved and based on C to avoid the F-B tritone altogether. Later theorists such as Ugolino d'Orvieto and Tinctoris advocated for the inclusion of B♭.[19] From then until the end of the Renaissance the tritone was regarded as an unstable interval and rejected as a consonance by most theorists.[20]

The name diabolus in musica ("the Devil in music") has been applied to the interval from at least the early 18th century, though its use is not restricted to the tritone. Andreas Werckmeister cites this term in 1702 as being used by "the old authorities" for both the tritone and for the clash between chromatically related tones such as F♮ and F♯,[21] and five years later likewise calls "diabolus in musica" the opposition of "square" and "round" B (B♮ and B♭, respectively) because these notes represent the juxtaposition of "mi contra fa".[22] Johann Joseph Fux cites the phrase in his seminal 1725 work Gradus ad Parnassum, Georg Philipp Telemann in 1733 describes, "mi against fa", which the ancients called "Satan in music"—and Johann Mattheson, in 1739, writes that the "older singers with solmization called this pleasant interval 'mi contra fa' or 'the devil in music'."[23] Although the latter two of these authors cite the association with the devil as from the past, there are no known citations of this term from the Middle Ages, as is commonly asserted.[24] However Denis Arnold, in the New Oxford Companion to Music, suggests that the nickname was already applied early in the medieval music itself:

It seems first to have been designated as a "dangerous" interval when Guido of Arezzo developed his system of hexachords and with the introduction of B flat as a diatonic note, at much the same time acquiring its nickname of "Diabolus in Musica" ("the devil in music").[25]

That original symbolic association with the devil and its avoidance led to Western cultural convention seeing the tritone as suggesting "evil" in music. However, stories that singers were excommunicated or otherwise punished by the Church for invoking this interval are likely fanciful. At any rate, avoidance of the interval for musical reasons has a long history, stretching back to the parallel organum of the Musica Enchiriadis. In all these expressions, including the commonly cited "mi contra fa est diabolus in musica", the "mi" and "fa" refer to notes from two adjacent hexachords. For instance, in the tritone B–F, B would be "mi", that is the third scale degree in the "hard" hexachord beginning on G, while F would be "fa", that is the fourth scale degree in the "natural" hexachord beginning on C"

Sorry, I was typing while you were posting!

http://www.simplifyingtheory.com/tritone/

"Tritone – The sound of devil

Well, maybe you are asking yourself: “Why the hell of the title of this section is ‘the sound of devil’?”.

For a long time, tritone was forbidden in the Western church due to fact of transmitting this tension effect. This dissonance was seen as malignant by the church, because they used to believe that the perfection of God would be translated into harmonic sounds, not in non-harmonics as the tritone.

This concept made that in the Middle Age, the tritone received the name of “diabolus in musica” (devil in music), and it was forbidden to be played (threatening composers to go to bonfire).

Later, they realized that this definition didn’t have biblical bases, and the tritone was then allowed. It is common to see some mistakes pseudo-religious trying to distort Bible even today. But let’s return to the dominants…"

The “Devil in Music, (Diabolus in musica)” is a dissonant tri-tone of an augmented fourth. On the piano, it would be from C to an F# (or any other beginning note) where the last note is augmented a half-step higher than a perfect fourth, but not a full step to a perfect fifth.

A perfect fourth would be from C to F on the piano. You can sing “Here Comes the Bride” to sing and hear a perfect fourth; however, it’s very difficult to sing a true augmented fourth.

Musicians in the Middle Ages shunned the tri-tone (supposedly it summoned Stan).

Now, because I’m a geek, “Here comes the Bride” is really Wagner’s Lohengrin, Act 3, Scene 1 with Elsa and her betrothed in their bridal chamber. In the opera, Elsa has already walked to the cathedral and gotten married to her Swan Knight with his admonishment—“you must never ask my name, my kinsmen, or where I came from.” Surprise, surprise—she’ll ask him, because if she didn’t, we wouldn’t have an opera of a strong mythic teaching.

Mendelssohn’s incidental music to A Midsummer Night’s Dream is where the familiar wedding recessional music comes from.

Big hugs, Tevai!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 10:15PM by BYU Boner.

Looks like some people who know something provided much more than I could.

I can only say the ban was an atrocity that wasn't fully remedied until Charlie Parker and friends came along.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2018 12:44AM by jay.

Well, Lottie, I AM a closeted Catholic. I love the liturgy, art, and many teachings resonate with me. About half of my family members are Catholics. Some have left to become Evangelicals. It puts me in a difficult situation on Sundays—do I want to have consecrated Host or a snake handed to me? Okay, it’s a joke—in poor taste—but a still a joke.

Now, my favorite Catholic joke—

A Franciscan friar dies and meets St. Peter. St. Peter says, “Welcome to Heaven, do you have any questions?”

“No, I’m just glad to be here!”

Then a Dominican who just died comes to St. Peter, “Welcome to Heaven, do you have any questions?”

“No, I’m just glad this is all real!”

And, you guessed it, a Jesuit who has just died meets St. Peter, “Welcome to heaven, do you have any questions?”

“Yes, where did your kids go to school?”

Your feelings are, or course, natural. I can’t stand to hear Mo-Tabs, and when I hear certain traditional Protestant hymns, my mind sings the Mormon words to my chagrin.

A good cleansing might involve some Palestrina—The [reforming] Pope Marcellus Mass, perhaps.

Then again, Twisted Sister can also be Catholic Cathartic.

Caste hugs! ... Whom am I fooling? ... Respectful geezer hugs?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 10:34PM by BYU Boner.

I indeed have several Palestrinas, including Missa Papae Marcelli.

So there.

More seriously, in another life I might have been what Graham Greene called himself--"an atheist, but a Catholic atheist"--due to his respect for the art, ceremony, and history. But the abuse problem effectively precludes that for me since I worry that the majesty re-enforces the institutions of subjugation, corruption and coverup. Until the church accepts responsibility for its evils and eradicates the structures of abuse, I won't be comfortable with it.

But the art, the art. . . One cannot reject the beauty achieved under Church auspices without rejecting the best in European creativity.

:)

My assertion above is that sexual abuse and coverup are inherent in the structure of the Catholic Church (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, the LDS Church). The corollary is that virtually every senior leader in the RCC has been involved in, or at least aware of, the scandals and the coverups.

Today the New York Attorney General issued subpoenas to very diocese in the state. Other states are likely to follow suit over time.

Anyone want to bet what the subpoenas will reveal?




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/09/06/new-york-joins-the-list-of-states-investigating-sex-crimes-committed-by-catholic-priests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.52c5208ce246

It will be interesting to get more external verification.

I hope they find nothing, but the victims deserve to have transparency as to the scope of this scandal. This issue needs to be investigated everywhere and fixed.

The problem is that it is difficult to identify any comprehensive investigations that have not revealed large numbers of abusers and victims, coverups, and a refusal to root out the systemic causes of the crimes. Within the US, there is no obvious reason to believe that what happened in Pennsylvania has not occurred everywhere else where the RCC has a significant presence.

Nor is there obvious reason to believe the same pattern does not obtain globally. The word "catholic" appears to describe not only the church but also its pattern of molestation, torture, and sometimes murder.

Yes, the victims deserve transparency.

There are many good Catholics, but the institution itself is evil. The fact that they aren't immediately cleaning house and sending a message to the world that this is intolerable is a global disgrace.

The fact that they have paid out over 3 billion dollars in sexual abuse settlements is scary. The institution needs to be shutdown in the United States until they have completely new leadership and policies are put in place to punish any preists or nuns that are guilty of wrongdoing. If any future coverups occur, those involved should go to jail.