Pope Francis 12.17.36 - 4.21.25 (1 Viewer)

[tonydead]

Who says they shouldn't?  They absolutely should be.

You said it when you said, it's always been that way, we're working on it and there is nothing to see here.

 

[Eephus]

Become a Protestant. We don’t deify our ministers (quite as much) and plenty of them are in jail!

Let's not be hasty now

 

[Politician Spock]

There has always been corruption in the Church. 1/12th of the 12 apostles were corrupt and all of them were deeply flawed.

I have never understood the disdain for Judas. If he didn't do what he did, no one would have salvation.

Or the disdain for Judas is because Jesus had a movement of people who believed he was the next anointed King of Israel, so they were a wee bit peeved at Judas that Jesus was killed, but they continued on with his brother James being the inheritor of the crown, until of course Jerusalem fell and Judea was lost, leaving nothing for a king to rule over anymore, and the story morphed into Jesus dying for sins, and they just kept the disdain for Judas despite it no longer making any sense to have disdain for what Judas did when without it the whole world is screwed. There should be a holiday celebrating what Judas did. At the very least he should get credit for an assist. 

 

[tonydead]

Isn't the Catholic Church's mission supposed to be to function as a religious organization?

I imagine a very Christ like thing to say is I would give EVERYTHING to keep a single child from being harmed like that.  The grand jury report says the cover up extends all the way to the Vatican. Archbishop Viganò claims Francis knew about McCarrick for years and did nothing.  

 

[Eephus]

I have never understood the disdain for Judas. If he didn't do what he did, no one would have salvation.

Or the disdain for Judas is because Jesus had a movement of people who believed he was the next anointed King of Israel, so they were a wee bit peeved at Judas that Jesus was killed, but they continued on with his brother James being the inheritor of the crown, until of course Jerusalem fell and Judea was lost, leaving nothing for a king to rule over anymore, and the story morphed into Jesus dying for sins, and they just kept the disdain for Judas despite it no longer making any sense to have disdain for what Judas did when without it the whole world is screwed. There should be a holiday celebrating what Judas did. At the very least he should get credit for an assist. 

The gospels were written decades (some historians say centuries) after the death of Christ.  The role of Judas evolved over time.  In Mark, the earliest of the gospels, he's kind of a minor figure and his betrayal is given equal weight with Peter's denials.  Judas became much more villainous in the books that followed.

There have long been elements of predestination in some Christian sects.  Judas becomes a more tragic figure if he lacked the free will to escape his destiny.

 

[Politician Spock]

The gospels were written decades (some historians say centuries) after the death of Christ.  The role of Judas evolved over time.  In Mark, the earliest of the gospels, he's kind of a minor figure and his betrayal is given equal weight with Peter's denials.  Judas became much more villainous in the books that followed.

There have long been elements of predestination in some Christian sects.  Judas becomes a more tragic figure if he lacked the free will to escape his destiny.

Again, I don't see what was clearly an assist on the play is a bad destiny. That's like being pissed off at Curry for feeding Durant. 

 

[Eephus]

Again, I don't see what was clearly an assist on the play is a bad destiny. That's like being pissed off at Curry for feeding Durant. 

I'd cast Lebron as Judas but I'm a local.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'd cast Lebron as Judas but I'm a local.

Yeah, and don't get me started on the whole "Jesus died for our sins". If he rose from the dead three days later, then all he really did is give up a weekend for them. 

 

[Psychopav]

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good–” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

 

[Politician Spock]

If that monk has been around since the middle ages, it makes me sick to think of how many kids he molested during his lifetime. 

 

[Jayrod]

The gospels were written decades (some historians say centuries) after the death of Christ.  The role of Judas evolved over time.  In Mark, the earliest of the gospels, he's kind of a minor figure and his betrayal is given equal weight with Peter's denials.  Judas became much more villainous in the books that followed.

Why do you say stuff like this as if it is fact?  Mark probably mentions Judas fewer times, but Mark is the shortest of the gospels and Peter was the primary source that Mark used, which is probably why the betrayal of Peter is so prominent.  But make no mistake, the role of Judas was the same in every gospel. 

Mark 14:20-21 20 “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

Seems like the gospel of Mark was pretty damning of Judas' behavior.  There are plenty of things you can point to in the gospels when claiming inconsistencies, but this really isn't one of them.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Why shouldn't all these f**ks be held accountable to the same laws as the rest of society?

They're closer to God than any of us. Duh.

 

[shader]

Why do you say stuff like this as if it is fact?  Mark probably mentions Judas fewer times, but Mark is the shortest of the gospels and Peter was the primary source that Mark used, which is probably why the betrayal of Peter is so prominent.  But make no mistake, the role of Judas was the same in every gospel. 

Mark 14:20-21 20 “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

Seems like the gospel of Mark was pretty damning of Judas' behavior.  There are plenty of things you can point to in the gospels when claiming inconsistencies, but this really isn't one of them.

He's guessing.  OR he's read someone who's guessing.  Either way, it's a pretty ridiculous thing to assert, and one that isn't backed up by the evidence. In each and every gospel, Judas betrayed Jesus.  Anyone trying to use the gospels and the "role of Judas" to build some sort of theory is on extremely thin ice.

 

[shader]

The gospels were written decades (some historians say centuries) after the death of Christ.  The role of Judas evolved over time.  In Mark, the earliest of the gospels, he's kind of a minor figure and his betrayal is given equal weight with Peter's denials.  Judas became much more villainous in the books that followed.

There have long been elements of predestination in some Christian sects.  Judas becomes a more tragic figure if he lacked the free will to escape his destiny.

He's not a minor figure in Mark. He's an apostle that betrayed Jesus. Big character. 

His betrayal isn't given equal weight with Peter's denials. He betrayed Jesus in the same way that he did in the other accounts and the facts are that Judas died and Peter was forgiven by Jesus and went on to become an apostle. Mark's account doesn't mention Judas killing himself, but that doesn't mean his role changed.  It just means that Mark didn't list the account of Judas killing himself. 

He doesn't become more villainous in any of the books that followed. He committed the same sin of betrayal.

 

[Eephus]

I'll defer to you guys on your knowledge of the gospels.  Point withdrawn.

 

[tonydead]

Always amuses me when the non-religious know the gospels better than the faithful.  And makes perfect sense that it would be that way.

 

[Eephus]

Always amuses me when the non-religious know the gospels better than the faithful.  And makes perfect sense that it would be that way.

There's a difference between interpreting the Bible as holy scripture vs. ancient writings to be analyzed in historical context.  I've had similar arguments with my mother-in-law over the years and should know better by now.

 

[tonydead]

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good–” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

Mental gymnastics people employ to defend their faith are boring and tiresome at best.

Thinking that re-telling a cute story you heard in a sermon is going to have any effect on anyone in here is ridiculous.

Putting up another baseless defense for child molesters is pathetic.  

 

[tonydead]

There's a difference between interpreting the Bible as holy scripture vs. ancient writings to be analyzed in historical context.  I've had similar arguments with my mother-in-law over the years and should know better by now.

Precisely.  One of those requires interpretation.  Often giant leaps of faith and suspension of logic.

 

[Psychopav]

Mental gymnastics people employ to defend their faith are boring and tiresome at best.

Thinking that re-telling a cute story you heard in a sermon is going to have any effect on anyone in here is ridiculous.

Putting up another baseless defense for child molesters is pathetic.  

I'm not defending child molesters and your abrasive approach to people who are utterly innocent and working to make things better might make you feel good but it does nothing to improve the situation.  Enjoy your righteous indignation.

 

[Politician Spock]

Precisely.  One of those requires interpretation.  Often giant leaps of faith and suspension of logic.

There's also the consideration that their historical context is nothing more than we know people in history wrote down a lot of myths. 

 

[tonydead]

I'm not defending child molesters and your abrasive approach to people who are utterly innocent and working to make things better might make you feel good but it does nothing to improve the situation.  Enjoy your righteous indignation.

Maybe I'd ask Catholics really really nice if they would stop participating in their church if they hadn't just COVERED UP THE RAPE OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN that extended all the way to the Vatican.  

 

[tonydead]

I’m sorry but Catholics own this. This is your club. It’s not some radical arm of the religion, you don’t get a pass like Muslims do for radical Islam. The highest bishops in the US are guilty. The coverup extended all the way to the Vatican. It’s very likely Francis is complicit. For years you saw the same accusations and reports come out as we did and you did nothing. You didn’t make sure this wasn’t happening in your parish. You didn’t challenge your church leaders. You supported defended and gave the church your money.

And after this latest round of news you don’t stop, you’re no better than they are. You fell for the worlds biggest con. You were sold snake from a pedophile ring. You are part of one of the largest crime organizations in history. 

 

[Eephus]

I’m sorry but Catholics own this. This is your club. It’s not some radical arm of the religion, you don’t get a pass like Muslims do for radical Islam. The highest bishops in the US are guilty. The coverup extended all the way to the Vatican. It’s very likely Francis is complicit. For years you saw the same accusations and reports come out as we did and you did nothing. You didn’t make sure this wasn’t happening in your parish. You didn’t challenge your church leaders. You supported defended and gave the church your money.

And after this latest round of news you don’t stop, you’re no better than they are. You fell for the worlds biggest con. You were sold snake from a pedophile ring. You are part of one of the largest crime organizations in history. 

So I take it I won't be able to interest you in buying a book of raffle tickets?

 

[ummich10]

I’m sorry but Catholics own this. This is your club. It’s not some radical arm of the religion, you don’t get a pass like Muslims do for radical Islam. The highest bishops in the US are guilty. The coverup extended all the way to the Vatican. It’s very likely Francis is complicit. For years you saw the same accusations and reports come out as we did and you did nothing. You didn’t make sure this wasn’t happening in your parish. You didn’t challenge your church leaders. You supported defended and gave the church your money.

And after this latest round of news you don’t stop, you’re no better than they are. You fell for the worlds biggest con. You were sold snake from a pedophile ring. You are part of one of the largest crime organizations in history. 

I absolutely agree with this.  Actually, I consider every Catholic complicit.  Sort of how some people (not all) think if they bake a cake for a gay wedding, they are somehow complicit in helping people sin or endorsing gay lifestyle.  If people continue supporting an organization with no accountability for the crimes bring committed, they are complicit and enabling the abuses to continue.

 

[Kafka]

Why shouldn't all these f**ks be held accountable to the same laws as the rest of society?

Settle down, Galileo.  You got off the hook once, we wouldn't want you to get excommunicated now.

 

[Galileo]

Settle down, Galileo.  You got off the hook once, we wouldn't want you to get excommunicated now.

I'd prefer it if I was.

 

[Jayrod]

The saddest part about tonydead is that he has a lot more in common with the people he rants against than he realizes.

 

[Psychopav]

Bishop Barron on fighting for the Church (a message for Catholics).

 

[Eephus]

Bishop Barron on fighting for the Church (a message for Catholics).

I can't really argue with anything he says but the recourse he suggests for angry Catholics (write a letter to the Pope?) seems woefully inadequate.

The root causes of the scandal and coverup cut to the foundation of how the church is structured.  I don't get anything from the bishop's homily that suggests there's any plan to address them.

 

[Psychopav]

I can't really argue with anything he says but the recourse he suggests for angry Catholics (write a letter to the Pope?) seems woefully inadequate.

The root causes of the scandal and coverup cut to the foundation of how the church is structured.  I don't get anything from the bishop's homily that suggests there's any plan to address them.

I disagree that structure is the problem.  I think it's more process and accountability.  My experience is that there has been a lack of principled leadership from the parish level on up.  It's not that it's entirely lacking, it's just that it's inconsistent, and I'm not convinced that from the seminary onward priests are given adequate training in how to lead.  Of course I could be wrong because my experience is mostly with priests educated in the 60s through the 80s, and it certainly seems like priests who came out of seminaries in the last 20-30 years are much more level headed and comfortable with leading.  But that's all very anecdotal of course, and is a topic for another time.

I think Bishop Barron mentions more than writing a letter to the pope but I see what you're saying.  Like I mentioned in a post above above, and I think that the spirit of Vatican II would support this, the laity needs to be a very large voice in fixing this issue (which, is what I think the Bishop is trying to get across).  Parishes across the US have active parish councils, but in my experience they are either wrapped up in petty local political jockeying or in obsequiousness to the status quo.  And while they are not meant to have any actual "power" all too often they also have no voice to effect change.  I would like to see changes in two areas:

• A redrawing of the lines of communication from the parish to the diocesan level.  This could entail restructuring and redefining the role of parish councils, and perhaps utilizing the role of deacon and priest as two separate conduits to the diocese, rather than everything going through the pastor.  It's not well known that deacons, like priests, answer directly to the bishop.  Also, as I alluded to above, I believe a restructuring of the laity's role in the parish beyond simply as advisors to the pastor is called for - especially in organization and communication, but also perhaps in parish management as well.  There should be a network of accountability instead of what we have in current structure, which amounts to a bottleneck at the level of pastor which has served to limit interparish dialogue and the information pipeline from parish to diocese.  There is a lot of complexity to this simple suggestion, and I recognize that.  Different dioceses are structured in different ways, and allow different levels of autonomy to the local parish.*  But there's no reason why each diocese shouldn't take the time to re-examine the current structures and consider some serious revision, aimed at improving transparency and communication both horizontally and vertically.
  
• A more comprehensive effort of defining formal standards of personal behavior, incorporating consistency across dioceses and transparency in the credentialing process for priests.  Regarding the latter:  As far as I am aware, dioceses have almost universally adopted some form of credentialing of lay volunteers who work with children, requiring background checks and training programs that educate adult volunteers about signs to look for that indicate potential situations of abuse, and clearly calling for volunteers to speak out ("say something if you see something").  These programs also require re-credentialing on an annual or bi-annual basis, including rerunning background checks.  Priests and deacons should have to go through the same rigorous review.  In fairness, maybe they do now, and I am just unaware, but I've never seen priests in those classes when I've taken them, and no one has ever told me or the parishes that I've been involved in that priests or deacons are subjected to regular background checks (not just one time but at regular intervals so that any new offenses are captured and warning signs have an opportunity to be caught in an institutional manner).  If they aren't, they should be.  If they are, it should be publicized and they should be subject to the same processes as lay ministers and volunteers.  Regarding formal standards of behavior, although dioceses have almost uniformly adopted some form of credentialing, the actual process for protecting children in normal ministerial settings is up to the individual diocese or parish to determine.  I thing that there should be universal standards adopted along the lines of two deep leadership , similar to the approach that the boy scouts have taken (with the exception of the one on one contact required in the confessional, obviously).
  

The Church has taken enormous steps to protect children over the last 20 years or so, but these are some additional steps which can and should be taken now to further ensure that we keep on this same path of vigilance and safety.

*One suggestion - and this would surely not work for every diocese - might be to hire parish administrators who handle all of the day to day business operations of the parish and are paid by the diocese directly.  In my experience, although the Church is set up in a very hierarchical manner, other than for items of faith and morals it is, in America, operationally governed almost like an association of small businesses.  It's almost unheard of for dioceses to take a strong hand on parish operations unless the parish is struggling financially.  Another topic for another time but this is one reason why so many Catholic schools are failing as the old model of one school per parish struggles to survive in a world where the Catholic population becomes more dispersed.

 

[Eephus]

When I spoke of structural reforms, I was thinking more towards upper management and how Rome has repeatedly protected the abusers at the expense of the victims.  This is a clear example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely.  There's no accountability and no obvious ways to put safeguards in place at the highest levels.  I still have the sense that church leadership is biding their time and looking for scapegoats in hopes that this blows over.  I hope I'm wrong but the secrecy in which the church conducts its business is one of the causes of the scandal.

Better communications and more lay involvement will certainly help matters and may prevent future occurrences.  But the church is a huge global enterprise that's far too unwieldy for real reform to be initiated from the grassroots level.

 

[Psychopav]

When I spoke of structural reforms, I was thinking more towards upper management and how Rome has repeatedly protected the abusers at the expense of the victims.  This is a clear example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely.  There's no accountability and no obvious ways to put safeguards in place at the highest levels.  I still have the sense that church leadership is biding their time and looking for scapegoats in hopes that this blows over.  I hope I'm wrong but the secrecy in which the church conducts its business is one of the causes of the scandal.

Better communications and more lay involvement will certainly help matters and may prevent future occurrences.  But the church is a huge global enterprise that's far too unwieldy for real reform to be initiated from the grassroots level.

I suppose but the decisions and the damage is at the local level for the most part.  Bishops have by far been the biggest issue for reassigning priests.

 

[Eephus]

I suppose but the decisions and the damage is at the local level for the most part.  Bishops have by far been the biggest issue for reassigning priests.

True but there have been no professional consequences for the bishops.  Very few were publicly reprimanded; they were even promoted in some cases.

 

[Psychopav]

True but there have been no professional consequences for the bishops.  Very few were publicly reprimanded; they were even promoted in some cases.

Yep, agree.

 

[comfortably numb]

I disagree that structure is the problem.  I think it's more process and accountability.  My experience is that there has been a lack of principled leadership from the parish level on up.  It's not that it's entirely lacking, it's just that it's inconsistent, and I'm not convinced that from the seminary onward priests are given adequate training in how to lead.  Of course I could be wrong because my experience is mostly with priests educated in the 60s through the 80s, and it certainly seems like priests who came out of seminaries in the last 20-30 years are much more level headed and comfortable with leading.  But that's all very anecdotal of course, and is a topic for another time.

I think Bishop Barron mentions more than writing a letter to the pope but I see what you're saying.  Like I mentioned in a post above above, and I think that the spirit of Vatican II would support this, the laity needs to be a very large voice in fixing this issue (which, is what I think the Bishop is trying to get across).  Parishes across the US have active parish councils, but in my experience they are either wrapped up in petty local political jockeying or in obsequiousness to the status quo.  And while they are not meant to have any actual "power" all too often they also have no voice to effect change.  I would like to see changes in two areas:

• A redrawing of the lines of communication from the parish to the diocesan level.  This could entail restructuring and redefining the role of parish councils, and perhaps utilizing the role of deacon and priest as two separate conduits to the diocese, rather than everything going through the pastor.  It's not well known that deacons, like priests, answer directly to the bishop.  Also, as I alluded to above, I believe a restructuring of the laity's role in the parish beyond simply as advisors to the pastor is called for - especially in organization and communication, but also perhaps in parish management as well.  There should be a network of accountability instead of what we have in current structure, which amounts to a bottleneck at the level of pastor which has served to limit interparish dialogue and the information pipeline from parish to diocese.  There is a lot of complexity to this simple suggestion, and I recognize that.  Different dioceses are structured in different ways, and allow different levels of autonomy to the local parish.*  But there's no reason why each diocese shouldn't take the time to re-examine the current structures and consider some serious revision, aimed at improving transparency and communication both horizontally and vertically.
  
• A more comprehensive effort of defining formal standards of personal behavior, incorporating consistency across dioceses and transparency in the credentialing process for priests.  Regarding the latter:  As far as I am aware, dioceses have almost universally adopted some form of credentialing of lay volunteers who work with children, requiring background checks and training programs that educate adult volunteers about signs to look for that indicate potential situations of abuse, and clearly calling for volunteers to speak out ("say something if you see something").  These programs also require re-credentialing on an annual or bi-annual basis, including rerunning background checks.  Priests and deacons should have to go through the same rigorous review.  In fairness, maybe they do now, and I am just unaware, but I've never seen priests in those classes when I've taken them, and no one has ever told me or the parishes that I've been involved in that priests or deacons are subjected to regular background checks (not just one time but at regular intervals so that any new offenses are captured and warning signs have an opportunity to be caught in an institutional manner).  If they aren't, they should be.  If they are, it should be publicized and they should be subject to the same processes as lay ministers and volunteers.  Regarding formal standards of behavior, although dioceses have almost uniformly adopted some form of credentialing, the actual process for protecting children in normal ministerial settings is up to the individual diocese or parish to determine.  I thing that there should be universal standards adopted along the lines of two deep leadership , similar to the approach that the boy scouts have taken (with the exception of the one on one contact required in the confessional, obviously).
  

The Church has taken enormous steps to protect children over the last 20 years or so, but these are some additional steps which can and should be taken now to further ensure that we keep on this same path of vigilance and safety.

*One suggestion - and this would surely not work for every diocese - might be to hire parish administrators who handle all of the day to day business operations of the parish and are paid by the diocese directly.  In my experience, although the Church is set up in a very hierarchical manner, other than for items of faith and morals it is, in America, operationally governed almost like an association of small businesses.  It's almost unheard of for dioceses to take a strong hand on parish operations unless the parish is struggling financially.  Another topic for another time but this is one reason why so many Catholic schools are failing as the old model of one school per parish struggles to survive in a world where the Catholic population becomes more dispersed.

Dude.

Thats alot of words.

How about we start with consistant jail time for any offenders and anyone involved in covering up any abuse? 

The church is always going to have abusers much like the  NCAA, little league, the boy scouts your local school district or any organization that deals with large quantities of people specifically dealing with children.

It's how you deal with the abusers that makes the church's actions deplorable in every single way.

Training, more administrators etc....none of that matters if the church will continue to allow themselves to be so shrouded in secrecy and covered by their veil of religion.

Unless i wake up several mornings and see a mob like crack down of hundreds/thousands of pedophile bishop,decans, cardinals, priests doing 20-100 years for their involvement in raping and abusing women and children i will never feel like anything has been done.

Your average american will be quick to complain about trump and say #notmypresident. I've never heard a catholic individual so outraged that they vocalize their displeasure and say #notmychurch.

 

[Eephus]

Your average american will be quick to complain about trump and say #notmypresident. I've never heard a catholic individual so outraged that they vocalize their displeasure and say #notmychurch.

I think many American Catholics have left the church as a result of the current cycle of scandals.  There hasn't been as much social media uproar because the church isn't a democracy and people tend to be more circumspect about their religious beliefs than their political ones.

The public has a more active role in our political system but individual Catholics are powerless to do anything other than voting with their feet or checkbook  But both of these options only weaken the church at the local level without impacting the entrenched power structure that allowed this to happen.  If I don't donate to the parish, the roof will leak but the coverup will continue.

 

[Psychopav]

Dude.

Thats alot of words.

How about we start with consistant jail time for any offenders and anyone involved in covering up any abuse? 

The church is always going to have abusers much like the  NCAA, little league, the boy scouts your local school district or any organization that deals with large quantities of people specifically dealing with children.

It's how you deal with the abusers that makes the church's actions deplorable in every single way.

Training, more administrators etc....none of that matters if the church will continue to allow themselves to be so shrouded in secrecy and covered by their veil of religion.

Unless i wake up several mornings and see a mob like crack down of hundreds/thousands of pedophile bishop,decans, cardinals, priests doing 20-100 years for their involvement in raping and abusing women and children i will never feel like anything has been done.

Your average american will be quick to complain about trump and say #notmypresident. I've never heard a catholic individual so outraged that they vocalize their displeasure and say #notmychurch.

Of course abusers should be locked up.  Of course people who cover up abuse should also face consequences.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.  You mean like the untouchables?  You want to see FBI guys breaking down Cardinals' front doors and hauling them away in handcuffs?

The reason that hasn't happened is because the Church culture has allowed the cover-ups to happen.  Cover-ups can only happen when good people who know details refuse to speak out.  That is what needs to change.

Which means we need to empower the laity and secular priests to speak out without fear of reprisal.  That's what all my words are getting at.  I understand your frustration but that's exactly what needs to be done.

 

[Eephus]

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.  You mean like the untouchables?  You want to see FBI guys breaking down Cardinals' front doors and hauling them away in handcuffs?

"We was too late"

 

[Politician Spock]

The saddest part about tonydead is that he has a lot more in common with the people he rants against than he realizes.

Is it windy up there?

 

[HellToupee]

So I take it I won't be able to interest you in buying a book of raffle tickets?

Hey beat it , I have calendars to $ell

 

[shader]

Dude.

Thats alot of words.

How about we start with consistant jail time for any offenders and anyone involved in covering up any abuse? 

The church is always going to have abusers much like the  NCAA, little league, the boy scouts your local school district or any organization that deals with large quantities of people specifically dealing with children.

It's how you deal with the abusers that makes the church's actions deplorable in every single way.

Training, more administrators etc....none of that matters if the church will continue to allow themselves to be so shrouded in secrecy and covered by their veil of religion.

Unless i wake up several mornings and see a mob like crack down of hundreds/thousands of pedophile bishop,decans, cardinals, priests doing 20-100 years for their involvement in raping and abusing women and children i will never feel like anything has been done.

Your average american will be quick to complain about trump and say #notmypresident. I've never heard a catholic individual so outraged that they vocalize their displeasure and say #notmychurch.

If you’re arguing for jail time, that’s a political argument, right? The best the church can do is report a crime and keep sexual offenders out of positions of power?

 

[Politician Spock]

If you’re arguing for jail time, that’s a political argument, right? The best the church can do is report a crime and keep sexual offenders out of positions of power?

I'd pay 'em 30 pieces of silver just to turn one in. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So I take it I won't be able to interest you in buying a book of raffle tickets?

I write a notation in the memo line on the tuition checks for my kids at St Seb’s. It probably doesn’t do any good. I don’t tithe, but I’ll never give up the Friday fish fries. 

 

[tonydead]

The saddest part about tonydead is that he has a lot more in common with the people he rants against than he realizes.

Let's hear it. What do I have in common with pedophiles and people who support them?  

 

[tonydead]

Of course abusers should be locked up.  Of course people who cover up abuse should also face consequences.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.  You mean like the untouchables?  You want to see FBI guys breaking down Cardinals' front doors and hauling them away in handcuffs?

The reason that hasn't happened is because the Church culture has allowed the cover-ups to happen.  Cover-ups can only happen when good people who know details refuse to speak out.  That is what needs to change.

Which means we need to empower the laity and secular priests to speak out without fear of reprisal.  That's what all my words are getting at.  I understand your frustration but that's exactly what needs to be done.

Good people who know and don't speak out aren't good people.  Saying they are is defending them.  Just like you continue to do. 

Just a few weeks ago you claimed pedophilia wasn't any more prevalent than any other sins being committed by these guys. Do you still feel that way?  Do you think the stigma the church has with sex could have anything to do with it?  

 

[Psychopav]

Good people who know and don't speak out aren't good people.  Saying they are is defending them.  Just like you continue to do. 

Just a few weeks ago you claimed pedophilia wasn't any more prevalent than any other sins being committed by these guys. Do you still feel that way?  Do you think the stigma the church has with sex could have anything to do with it?  

Don't be a fool.  I'm not saying that lay people watch priests molest little children and look the other way.  I'm saying that they allow a culture where cover-ups can happen to exist and look the other way, and that needs to change.

 

[Dedfin]

The public has a more active role in our political system but individual Catholics are powerless to do anything other than voting with their feet or checkbook  But both of these options only weaken the church at the local level without impacting the entrenched power structure that allowed this to happen.  If I don't donate to the parish, the roof will leak but the coverup will continue.

Where are these kids coming from that are getting raped? I thought they came from the parish? Don't send your kids to church, they have a 0% chance of getting raped by a priest. I'd feel disgusted if I wrote a check to any church even considering your point. People that still support them obviously have different priorities than I do.

 

[dickey moe]

The Pope is a head of state as well as a religious leader.  Get real -- ain't nobody gonna throw him in jail.

That's a big problem.

 

[Politician Spock]

Don't be a fool.  I'm not saying that lay people watch priests molest little children and look the other way.  I'm saying that they allow a culture where cover-ups can happen to exist and look the other way, and that needs to change.

It won't change as long as people think they'll piss god off if they don't write their tithe check.