Wow.

I was forced from my home (melodramatic version) or I had to leave home for expensive and toxic repairs (realistic version) and came back to find I couldn't comment on my own thread, "Following the Catholic Church sex scandal -- right or wrong?"

Soooooooo

I guess I am pleased it set off such a lively discussion -- and I think SOME of it was productive, especially as the thread went on and it wasn't just the same two posters relitigating cold cases.. Or at least it seemed so to me.

A few responses -- summer -- thank you thank you thank you for getting it. Coming to your first response was like coming across an oasis in the desert. PG Wodehouse would have called it "rare and refreshing fruit." But then he was like that. :)

Another random response -- I was taught that stressing the ROMAN Catholic Church or *R*CC was part and parcel of classic 19th century anti-Catholicism. It makes it seem foreign -- and suspicious. In this country, it is the American Catholic Church for the simple reason that it is more accurate -- and also because it is less freighted with historic conflicts between Rome and the world -- especially the Anglican world. But this could just be me, my education. It is RCC in some articles that are solid, for example in the NYT. SO THERE'S THAT.

Some brought up that many Catholics stay and some wondered what their stories were. Well, god bless google, you can find that, too.

https://georgiabulletin.org/commentary/2018/08/why-im-not-leaving-the-catholic-church/

https://international.la-croix.com/news/why-i-cannot-even-think-about-leaving-the-catholic-church/8478

A word of caution -- there are an estimated 1.3 billion Catholics. Any generalizing about millions -- let alone billions -- of people speaking hundreds of languages and living in thousands of disparate cultures is doomed to bubbling vaporizing -- at best. I don't think we can really know why some leave and some stay. We can only know the stories that get told -- and maybe that should inspire us to tell our post-Mormon stories. Perhaps there are as many stories of leaving -- or staying -- as there are Catholics. As a lifelong reader and a writer, I hope so.

If so many leave either the Mormons or the Catholics are forced to seriously restructure, then we have something. I guess.

And without a shred of proof I just have a hunch that more simple wander away from Catholicism than will decisively leave over this particular crisis.

One recurring theme in these threads is that abuse is widespread -- period -- in the world -- period -- so is this different? Is it the same as the abuse in the schools -- or other churches -- etc.?

That is legitimate to wonder about -- but I have a few reasons to think even if not unique, this abuse seems beyond the average school district problem.

The FBI and the federal government are investigating sex abuse in the Catholic Church, for one thing. That is rare, to say the least. As I understand it, the concern is that the cover-ups amount to conspiracy? I am not sure. They are not investigating public schools -- probably because there is no evidence of a concerted cover-up to protect offending teachers -- not anywhere I am aware of.

The sheer numbers involved are daunting. In the Pennsylvania diocese alone, we are talking about hundreds of perpetrators and thousands of victims. Again -- I am not aware of those numbers in any one school district. And worst of all, the whole stinking mess was concealed -- from parishioners, from the general public, from the police, from the press, from the world which might have applied the antiseptic of sunlight.

Although it seems a waste of holy pixels to me, I suppose it must be said -- of course there are other cases of abuse. Some churches ARE abuse -- the People's Temple anyone? Scientology? I have heard both mentioned on the boards for the same reason -- they call to mind the ways the Mormon Church can and does screw up.

I think blaming Catholic lay people is evil -- as blaming the victim always is. I realize most priest are not implicated -- yet I still like the one I posted, the one who even though he had never covered anything up, took some responsibility. Taking responsibility -- I dunno -- isn't that what Jesus would have at least suggested? Just wondering.

I am glad that the consensus of opinion seemed to be that this is appropriate for this board. It is about RECOVERING from Mormonism -- and in my humble opinion you are not recovered until you get over Mormon specialness -- and that can include the claim that you uniquely suffer. Realizing that other have faced terrible dilemmas about religion -- and ultimately solved them -- one way or another -- can be a healthy part of solving your own.

The Pennsylvania incident took place over 80 years. That isn't always reported.Some reports make it sound as if it all happened very recently. That doesn't make it alright,but it does need to be understood.

Yeah -- I understood it.

A of of people don't and it often isn't reported. I do think it would be nice if the press could get it right.

But it is also inaccurate to make it seem as though it ALL happened 80 year ago. It is about cases that span that far back -- but some are recent enough. That is part of what is troubling -- it has been going on for some time -- and it just keeps going on.

I think you are NOT supposed to mention posters' names -- but thanks everyone who clarified the Roman Catholic just Catholic name thing.

Not that I am CLEAR -- but at least I understand that using the Roman Catholic Church is not the error of bias I was taught. Of course now when I go to use either I will hesitate and think -- Is this in the Chicago Manual of Style -- or are you just on your own in this wilderness?

"It was ironic because in many ways the CC is a lot more tolerant than Mormonism." That is my impression, too, from having several lapsed Catholic friends. And I agree -- unless the Mormon Church encourages liberal Mormons, social Mormons, critical Mormons, academic Mormons, I'm just here for the cookies Mormons -- they might as well give it up.

Catholics have long had a tradition of academia and of subtle, nuanced, mystical Catholics -- the Jesuits. I think that tradition has stood them well.

Maybe until now. And now I do think there is danger of -- I dunno -- collapse seems melodramatic -- but something like it seems possible.

:)

Fun fact: There is a requirement that RCC members go to Mass on Sundays (as well as certain other religiously-significant days throughout the year), and this requirement can be met by going to "Mass" (I don't know a better word to use here) at any of the OTHER Catholic churches.

Attending services at those churches COUNTS!

So for RCC members: either close to home, or while traveling....adventure calls!

Nice!

And according to my lapsed Catholic friend, you can then lie. "Oh -- of course I went to Mass -- at you know -- <mumble something> church -- the one across town. The one you have never heard of."

At least she was puzzled by our problems with Bishop Interviews, as she said the *understood convention* was to lie in confession.

I take no responsibility for these claims. Perhaps she isn't your AVERAGE lapsed Catholic.

>> as she said the *understood convention* was to lie in confession

Confessions are officially anonymous, so there would be no reason to lie. Plus the priest MUST keep your confession to himself. Nothing leaves the confessional. I could see Catholics potentially leaving certain items out of their confessions, however.

As for church attendance, it's not like there is some sort of punishment for not going. Officially, you are supposed to go every week, but there is a range of activity level in the RCC. It's not something you would have to lie about.

My experience is that those types of people who might want to lie would simply skip confession. Confession doesn't work if you lie so I doubt believers would.Those who are less devout and uncomfortable with it would simply not go. Who knows though. PEople are.strange

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another random response -- I was taught that
> stressing the ROMAN Catholic Church or *R*CC was
> part and parcel of classic 19th century
> anti-Catholicism. It makes it seem foreign -- and
> suspicious.

Very possibly, but the reality is much more complex. In specific geographical areas of the United States, those where the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY Catholic church around, this may well be true.


> In this country, it is the American
> Catholic Church for the simple reason that it is
> more accurate -- and also because it is less
> freighted with historic conflicts between Rome and
> the world -- especially the Anglican world. But
> this could just be me, my education. It is RCC in
> some articles that are solid, for example in the
> NYT. SO THERE'S THAT.

I live in Southern California, and we have a number of NON-"Roman" Catholic churches, who ARE "Catholic" in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church is ALSO "Catholic" (they are "in full communion with the Pope in Rome"), but they are NOT "Roman Catholic." These are NOT "Orthodox" churches because they are under the full control and direction of the Pope in Rome.

Their liturgies are often different, the liturgical languages used are diverse, and the "rules" are different: married priests, and priests with families, are allowed in at least some of them because this is true of the one closest to me and I interviewed the priest in charge for an article I was writing for a magazine at that time.

Here is what I think is a fairly comprehensive list of "Catholic"--"in full communion with the Pope in Rome"--Eastern Rite Churches (in no particular order):

Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Slovak Greek Catholic
Ukrainian Greek Catholic
Chaldean Catholic
Coptic Catholic
Eritrean Catholic
Ethiopian Catholic
Armenian Catholic
Albanian Catholic
Belarusian Catholic
Bulgarian Catholic
Croatian and Serbian Catholic
Greek Catholic
Hungarian Catholic
Italo-Albanian Catholic
Macedonian Catholic
Melkite Catholic
Romanian Catholic
Russian Catholic
Syro-Malabar Catholic
Maronite Catholic
Syriac Catholic
Syro-Malankara Catholic

I know for a fact that many of these Eastern Rite Catholic churches are located in many different parts of the United States, usually (of course) as a result of immigration history.

The point of what I am saying is: There are many Catholic churches in the United States which ARE Catholic ("in full communion with Rome"), who DO consider themselves subject to the leadership of the Pope in Rome, but are NOT "Roman Catholic."

To the non-Catholic Americans in those areas, the lack of the word "Roman" in the church's name is irrelevant to that congregation's local reputation.

I also wonder if the fact that priests in these Eastern Rite Catholic churches are allowed to be married, and to have children, might have something to do with the fact that I have never heard or read of an Eastern Rite Catholic church who had a problem with sexual abuse.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2019 02:05AM by Tevai.

I'm sure the Eastern rite churches have problems with sexual abuse just as all other religious and civic organizations do. I am also agnostic about the degree to which marriage and family life reduce rates of abuse. It seems that they would, but there are abusers in all sorts of romantic and familial relationships. So perhaps some marginal reduction.

Where I do think this all makes sense, though, is in the organizational context. We know that the RCC has a proven institutional bias in favor of protecting abusers, moving them to "fresh" fields, and covering up the whole mess. It follows that anything that dilutes the institutional culture or distances individual priests from the RCC hierarchy will increase the odds that abusers will be identified and removed before they can do further harm. Since normal sexuality and familiarity, along with adherence to a different liturgy and other unique characteristics, indicate some separation from the RCC, they may well be associated with lower rates of child abuse.

Again, it's not the religion or the believers who are the problem. It is the authority structure.

What you've said here makes a great deal of sense, LW.

I hadn't thought it through the way you lay it out, but what you say makes sense.

To the best of my knowledge, no group or institution is suspected of having a higher rate of sexual abuse of children than the human family. I say suspected because in no case are there sure and solid statistics, but the stats we do have support my statement. So, out the window with 'normal sexuality' and/or familiarity as a possible lessening factor. Sexual abusers of children and rapists of adults are well known to be most often known by their victims. Any time there is someone in authority over children, there has been sexual abuse: schools, churches, families, clubs, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2019 05:37AM by blacksheep1.

Can you offer any sources for the stats that say abuse is more common in the family than anywhere else? I have never seen such evidence and would like to see it from credible studies.

Well, only very nearly every study and report from the last 40 years in the traditional anglophone countries, and a couple of others tossed in. The results have always been in the range of one-third to forty(-some) percent of child sexual abuse perpetrators were/are family, variation likely due to how 'family' is defined (step-uncles? foster-cousins?).

The above figures have been accepted for so long, I'm not aware of much really recent research into the matter. There isn't so much research funding that it can keep going into the same question. The newer areas of research focus on dangers from social media and, as always, improving treatment and prevention.

Check national/state/provincial records and reports for meta-data, as well as child protective agencies, criminal statistics advisory panels, crime victims protection organizations, government policy think-tanks, etc., for specifics and most recent statistics, Remember that a lot of the stats will be estimated due to under-reporting, so read the fine print.

If you mean globally, I don't know (the WHO probably has that info). I also don't know much about other individual countries. I've read that teachers are the main perpetrators in some African countries (check with UNICEF?). Child sexual abuse is going down in the US, but up in the UK.

It's always a question of access to the child, access to privacy, and power/authority over the child. No other social or professional group has more of all three than family members, not school teachers (although that percentage appears to be going up slightly, at least in some areas), not religious officials (overall, decreasing due to the secularization of societies), not non-academic skill instructors/social organization leaders/coaches (e.g., team sports, dance, martial arts, musical instruments, Scouting), not doctors/nurses/hospital staff, not parents' friends, not daycare workers and babysitters, and so on.

If you add all of the non-stranger groups together and subtract family, then you could create a 'group' larger than family, but it would include so many types of contacts that it would be meaningless for predictive value or developing protective strategies.

At www.jimhopper.com, there's a page on child abuse and statistics that should help you understand their use and validity in this field. Good luck!



www.stopitnow.org

i imagine the family is the least often reported abuse of them all even if it's the highest rate of abuse, because it's the most covered up. The secrecy and authoritarianism of parental or family figures is overwhelming to young children and adolescents in early childhood development as much or more than church or school figures are.

Okay, I followed your lead and see what you are saying. Yes, "family" is usually defined very broadly to include uncles and aunts and boyfriends and girlfriends and babysitters. But with that caveat, it is indeed within the "family" that most abuse occurs.

That does not, however, invalidate my point. When I say "normal sexuality," I mean people who are in loving relationships with normal sexual outlets. And when I say "familiarity," I mean it in the sense of having a husband or wife and possibly children. The fact remains that the vast majority of children are NOT abused by their family members; it is the "abnormal" members of families that perpetrate the abuse. So the presence or absence of normal sexual proclivities and outlets still matters. If an organization disproportionately selects abnormal people, problems are likely to rise to supra-normal levels.

Moreover even if most sexual abuse occurs within the household, we still have to ask what factors increase or decrease abuse in non-familial organizations and broader society. That most molestation (as measured by incidents more than the number of victims) occurs within the home doesn't change the role of sexual problems outside of the family. So I can't join you in saying "out the window with 'normal sexuality' and/or familiarity as a possible lessening factor" in sexual abuse. In the home or out, "normal sexuality" matters.

Indeed, your post-edit statement that "any time there is someone in authority over children, there has been sexual abuse: schools, churches, families, clubs, etc." is virtually identical to my preceding post. As I said, "it's not the religion or the believers who are the problem. It is the authority structure."

Again, it is the authority structure.

>>Again, it is the authority structure.

Right. No one (unfortunately) will ever put a stop to child sexual abuse. But institutions can send a strong message that it will not be tolerated and in fact will be subject to punishment via that law. This keeps the numbers of abuse cases down. For too long, the Catholic church simply shuffled offending priests from one location to another. Priests in turn got the message loud and clear that they could engage in child sexual abuse with little fear of serious consequence. This created a church culture that not only tolerated but may have encouraged and promoted the abusers, thus increasing their numbers.

I agree. I suspect the problem is actually complicated with no one thing being the culprit -- I think celibacy is part of it, I think misogyny is part of it, I think a past where the CC was THE law is part, but the power structure is probably the biggest offender.

And the weird part is that nothing I mentioned is necessarily bad or without an up side. Well, maybe misogyny -- but even there, the CC also has a tradition of strong, outspoken women -- even so -- and nuns have been an underrated force in education and history.

I think it might be the way it all comes together. I would compare it to racism in the U.S. -- it is systemic. Probably MOST people in the U.S. want an equal society, but no one seems to know how to deal with the way bias has been built into power structures. No one can break it up.

I would imagine that the real problem is the lustful and perverted actions of the priests. After all, that "authority structure" can't hide, protect, or transfer any sexual abusers until they've already started abusing children.

But I'm not aware of any credible evidence that the RCC selects disproportionately perverted people. I have a hunch that there is some of that--well, not so much the church selecting somewhat more troubled souls but rather their selecting themselves--but such a tendency would probably be marginal.

My belief is that if you started with a random group of men with some "normal" rate of molesters, then added the institutional power and tradition of something like the RCC, you would end up with abnormally high levels of abuse simply because of the cult of authority, the protection, and the coverup. In short, the greater prevalence of molestation occurs even if the original group was exactly like the broader population.

This matters for a few reasons. First, society is never going to eliminate all abuse; there is some inherent level of molesters. Second, to the extent that the RCC's institutional structure multiplies the number of victims we need to look not just at that church but at all other entities with similar characteristics. That might, for instance, describe the armed forces (with regard to women but not to children). Third, the institutional element of the problem should give us reason to fear what the LDS Church is or what it may become, for with the conspicuous exception of the rotation of Mormon leaders the church resembles the RCC in many ways.

Tevai, there are also Catholic churches that are not in communion with the RCC, i.e. the Polish National Catholic Church. My mom and I visited a PNCC parish once for a festival. It was like going home for my mom, who was ethnically Polish. I imagine for the various ethnic Catholic churches, they also have a warm, family feeling to them.

I grew up RCC and I don't ever remember that name being considered insulting in any way. IIRC it's even a part of the church service ("the holy Roman Catholic church.") But we normally shortened it to just "Catholic."

I've never before heard of the Polish National Catholic Church, so you've shown me more than I knew. :)

My impression (though I have personal knowledge of only a few of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches) is that these (meaning: other than "Roman") Catholic churches DO tend to have "a warm family feeling" to them.

(Something which is also true about the Roman Catholic churches in northern New Mexico, BTW--which also tend towards warm, we-are-family, atmospheres.)

There IS an "extended family" vibe which is homey, comforting, and attractive--and this is one of the things I personally find, and find attractive, in many Jewish congregations as well.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2019 01:37PM by Tevai.

>>And without a shred of proof I just have a hunch that more simply wander away from Catholicism than will decisively leave over this particular crisis.

Thanks for your kind words, Janeeliot. I'm just going to respond to this aspect for now. I agree with your hunch that most Catholics just wander away. There is no need to resign because the church does not hunt you down. You can stop attending without repercussion. And if you move, the new parish will have no idea that you are in the community unless you formally register at the parish.

I also don't think that there is the harsh line in the mind of an average Catholic between going inactive and being finished with the church. This is because Catholics in a way are considered a part of the church family, and are always welcome "home," even if they join another church and just go back to the RCC for funerals, etc. So while I personally consider myself finished with the RCC, I will always be accepted among Catholics due to a common church culture.

Yes, this is right.

It's advantageous in the sense that people who wander off can wander back again, unlike the LDS church whose excommunication and shunning processes render it a more binary choice.

I have a relative who rose quite high in the Mormon Church but with age grew frustrated at the leaders' stupidity. I once heard him mutter, "we've got to get ride of the popes," meaning dump the senescent apostles and prophets with their my-way-or-the-highway attitude and allow more flexibility. It was ironic because in many ways the CC is a lot more tolerant than Mormonism.

He believed that if Mormonism couldn't emulate the more flexible approach exemplified by the RCC's attitude towards membership, allowing New Order Catholics and cafeteria Catholics, etc., the LDS church was doomed.

Yeah, even though my Catholic family knows I'm an atheist, they still consider me as nothing more than a lapsed Catholic. I could go to mass next Sunday, accept communion, and nobody would bat an eye. I'd be more likely to raise eyebrows if I were to stay in pew during communion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2019 10:44AM by GregS.

One of the several reasons that I can no longer consider myself Catholic is because of the overwhelming misogyny in the Church. I just read an article the other day that said that Pope John Paul II, everyone’s favorite Pope, supposedly such a wonderful man and now declared a saint by the Catholic Church, refused to shake the hand of the President of Ireland- because she was a woman! He shook her husband’s hand instead and said something about how the husband should be the president instead of her because a woman should not be a leader like that! I felt sick when I read that, and any respect I had for Pope JP II got gone with indecent haste! It was not just his misogyny, but his overwhelming rudeness that appalled me! No one ever taught this guy common courtesy or even rudimentary manners?!

Hate to break it to you, but McAleese lied.

Per https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/popes-hand-of-friendship-for-the-president-26159766.html, from Feb 13, 1999 when they first met in Rome:

"She was greeted by head of the Papal household Bishop James Harvey and escorted by Swiss guards and 'gentlemen of the Papal household' along a balcony with frescos by Rafael.

The Pope looked frail and walked with the aid of a stick but was clearly in very good form as he held out his hand to greet the President.

Mrs McAleese, her head covered by a fine lace shawl but not her face, shook the outstretched hand firmly and asked the Pontiff if he was feeling better after his flu."

I think she's entitled to her own point of view about it. For instance, when a Pope hold out his hands to a beieving Catholic, it's usually so that the church member can kiss the Pope's ring (a sign of respect to Catholics.)

McAleese's claim, decades after the fact in new book she is promoting, is that Pope John Paul II "refused" to shake her hand.

The contemporaneous report of the meeting noted that the Pope had offered his hand to McAleese, which she did shake. I can't tell from the article whether he was actually offering his ring. Are you suggesting that the headline should have read, "Female President of Ireland Refuses to Kiss Pope's Ring" instead of "Pope's hand of friendship for the President"?

Since there were no other reports at the time of the meeting indicating the Pope refused to shake her hand, I'm much more inclined to accept The Independent's report over McAleese's uncorroborated account 20 yrs later.

It's like Joseph Smith waiting 20 years before telling anybody about the First Vision and claiming he was persecuted by everybody at the time. At yet nobody, not even his earliest critics who would have pounced on such a fanciful story, even knew of it.

I read in respect to JFK that heads of state, Catholic or not, are not required or expected to kiss the ring.When Jackie Kennedy, not the head of state,but only the wife of one, attempted to kiss John XXIII's ring, he instead embraced her, kissed her and called her by her first name. Sounds.as if JPII actually did this, it was his idea rather than some holy requirement.

That is very much in line with how I remember JPII.

If it happened, it sounds like it was about her political actions rather than her gender. It really doesnt sound like JP though. One of his best friend was a Jewish woman from Poland. They had known each other when young and kept in touch till the end.He seemed to like women.The pope I mentioned in respect to Mrs Kennedy,however, was not JP.It was John XXIII. However if he was free to hug and kiss a woman, shaking hands probably wasnt forbidden 2 decades later.

John XXIII was known for being a good guy. He was my mom's favorite pope.

True, but even though John Paul was pretty conservative, he was pretty savvy and charismatic. Refusing to shake someone's hand seems out of character for him. I don't know what happened but it has debunked by others whom were there and it seems atypical for John Paul. I will reserve judgment since I wasn't there and the two are contradictory.

And the witnesses are entitled to their points of view also

Interesting. By her own account, former Irish president Mary McAleese was also disrespected by Cardinal Bernard law, who allegedly told her, "I'm sorry for Catholic Ireland to have you as president." In her words, “I then told the cardinal that I was the President of Ireland and not just of Catholic Ireland.” (As an aside, Cardinal Law was later implicated in the Catholic sex-abuse scandal.)

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/pope-john-paul-refused-to-shake-hand-of-ireland-s-female-president-she-reveals

I left the Catholic church for the same reason. Later on, there were other reasons as well, but that was my initial impetus. I was in my mid-teens, reading feminist literature, and I wasn't about to put up with a church that did not accept me as fully equal. I was also furious that the Catholic church had banned most forms of birth control, and certainly any effective form of birth control. My reasoning at the time was that birth control was a gift from a loving God. Yes, most Catholics routinely ignore that ban, but the fact that the church disrespects women that badly wore on me.

From an SLTrib reader (HenryJC):

"I can think of a small, purely symbolic act that the Pope could take immediately, to signal to his church, and to the world, that abomination, great and small, will not be tolerated:

posthumously defrock Cardinal Law: the man who had the opportunity to clean up the mess in Boston, and choose, instead, to hide it and disperse the perpetrators."

There is no low life in this earth quite like a low life who tries to defend child raping priests & the church who protects them.

Imagine putting your antiquated, nonsensical beliefs above children being raped.

HH =)

For example:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-47549297

The silence from the catholic apologists of the board is deafening.

HH =)