Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



telegramsam ([info]telegramsam) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2010-03-18 12:43:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:oh, for fuck's sake.

A whole plethora of hypocrisy and fail wrapped up neatly with a bow
I have Roman Catholic friends that I have a lot of respect for and they hold a variety of personal beliefs and values, but none are idiotic to the point of this (if they were they would not be my friends) - from the church itself... "Vatican ends "wall of silence" over child abuse scandal".

Some of the attitudes expressed in this article, I must laugh at simply because the other option is banging my head against a wall.

"In one case, the priest defended himself on the grounds that he sincerely believed it was not sinful for him to have sexual relations - provided it was not with a woman."

Because, you know, women are totes the root of all evil and it's so much better and holier to molest defenseless children.

I can understand this priest's confusion though, considering what sort of teachings and attitudes many Christian churches, Roman Catholic and otherwise, have regarding women in general.

"He also gave numbers: during the past decade the Holy Office received details of 3,000 Catholic priests reported by their Bishops to Rome for sexual misconduct or, even worse, crimes.

Sixty per cent of these cases involved homosexual acts, 30% related to heterosexual behaviour and only 10% - or 300 priests - were, he said, 'actual cases of paedophilia.'"

The 60% vs 30% figure is particularly hilarious considering the R.C. Church's wholesale public condemnation of homosexuals.

The fact that they chose, for decades, to protect child molesters and abusers (plenty of non-sexual abuse in Catholic schools went on as well apparently), frankly... well they get no sympathy from me in this ongoing scandal. Classic case of real sin (as opposed to the made-up kind like simply being born gay) coming home to roost.


Vatican grapples with child abuse row

The Vatican is breaking its silence on the previously taboo subject of paedophilia, following allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Germany. As the Pope has now become embroiled in the scandal, the BBC's David Willey questions whether he has been doing his job properly.

During four decades of reporting from the Vatican, I have never seen a graver crisis affecting the very credibility of the leadership of the world's longest surviving international organisation, the Roman Catholic Church.

In recent weeks, Pope Benedict has had to deal with some very serious allegations.

They have been documented in two official Dublin government reports on scandals concerning the way his Church leaders in Ireland have systematically played down reported cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors.

The Pope has been busy writing new instructions to the clergy and faithful of traditionally Catholic Ireland, drawing up stricter rules for dealing with priestly paedophilia.

Multiple scandals

Without warning, he was suddenly confronting new, similar scandals which have come to light in his own country, Germany - including one in the very town where he taught at the university and where his brother was choirmaster of a famous boys' choir.

His promised pastoral letter to Ireland has had to be put on hold.

Now his record as Archbishop of Munich in the late 1970s and early 80s, is being mercilessly scrutinised by the international media.

“ For the first time, senior Catholic figures are beginning to call publicly for a re-examination of the rule of priestly celibacy ”

Did Pope Benedict know, or did he not know, about cases of priest paedophiles reported in his own diocese?

If yes, then why did he not act to discipline and remove them and inform the police?

It has since been admitted in Germany that there was a cover up, just as in similar cases elsewhere.

The Vatican says this hypothesis - as far as the Pope himself is concerned, is "false and defamatory".

But if the answer is no, then it seems legitimate to ask if the Archbishop, as he was then, was doing his job properly?

Oldest taboo

Naturally the Vatican public relations machine has been working overtime to deflect all personal criticism away from the pontiff.

A German prelate has taken the rap for the Munich cover up. The Vatican's version is that Pope Benedict knew nothing about one particularly worrisome and well-documented case which has remained in the headlines for days.

Ordinary Catholics in many countries are now asking questions about a subject which has been taboo at the Vatican ever since I can remember.

The other day a senior Vatican official, Monsignor Charles Scicluna - an amiable priest from Malta who holds the title of Promoter of Justice - actually gave a lengthy official interview about how headquarters in Rome have been reacting to the huge growth in the number of cases of clerical abuse reported to the Pope during the past decade alone.

He said their desks had been flooded with accusations of sexual misdemeanours by priests, above all in the United States, back in 2003 and 2004.

“ Only 300 priests were actual cases of paedophilia... it is not as widespread as has been believed ”
Monsignor Charles Scicluna
Cardinal Ratzinger - as he was then known - was head of the department responsible for disciplining seriously errant clergy worldwide.

He had displayed "wisdom and courage" in his handling of cases, Monsignor Scicluna declared.

He also gave numbers: during the past decade the Holy Office received details of 3,000 Catholic priests reported by their Bishops to Rome for sexual misconduct or, even worse, crimes.

Sixty per cent of these cases involved homosexual acts, 30% related to heterosexual behaviour and only 10% - or 300 priests - were, he said, "actual cases of paedophilia."

This was, of course, too many, Monsignor Scicluna admitted, but he added: "The phenomenon is not as widespread as has been believed."

Priestly misbehaviour

Some of the excuses have been lame, to say the least. For example, Father Lombardi, the official Vatican spokesperson, stressed that the problem of paedophilia is not limited to Church institutions.

He also denied that a "wall of silence" had been erected by Pope Benedict in 2001, when he signed an official Vatican document telling Catholic Bishops around the world to keep secret the details of priestly misbehaviour that they reported to Rome.

This was simply a case of mistranslation of the text, according to Monsignor Scicluna: "The Church does not like to showcase justice, but has never banned the denouncing of crimes to the civil authorities," he said.

Even in Italy, cases of priestly paedophilia are coming out of the woodwork - over 80 of them, according to prosecutors.

In one case, the priest defended himself on the grounds that he sincerely believed it was not sinful for him to have sexual relations - provided it was not with a woman.

The whole problem of sex and the priesthood is now being discussed in a way it never has been before.

For the first time senior Catholic figures are beginning to call publicly for a re-examination of the rule of priestly celibacy.

Some have retracted, clearly on instructions from Rome, but the trend is unmistakeable, and the tipping point may have been reached this year as a result of the Vatican's inability to stem the tide of scandal.



(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: Oh for...
[info]octavia
2010-03-19 02:08 am UTC (link)
You know, I wonder. I'm sure you're right that pedophiles are drawn to places that have easy access, like some religious orders, but I truly wonder if that's all there is. There's a huge power differential at work as well, I think. And from the reports that are pouring in in my neck of the woods, it seems that abuse and sexual abuse sometimes went hand in hand. I'm not sure how to put this, but I'm not sure that all these men were necessarily that attracted to young boys (or girls), as they might have been attracted to wielding a lot of power and using that for their sexual gratification - the only they can have.

I do happen to think that enforced celibacy can be very unhealthy. Combine it with power and a completely warped vision on what sexuality actually is, which can foster self-hate, and you have a potentially highly toxic cocktail.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh for...
[info]ekaterinv
2010-03-19 02:32 am UTC (link)
This.

Also, the Catholic Church does have a long history of telling their priests that sex with altar boys is way better than sex with women, because women are icky and dirty and disgusting and evil and everything that is wrong with the world. There was some nasty letter-writing back and forth about it in the 15th century, with some priests standing up for women. The mass crackdown on married priests in the late Middle Ages made for a lot of very unhappy people, both priests and parishioners.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh for...
[info]indis_earfalas
2010-03-19 03:15 am UTC (link)
While you're not even remotely wrong about that; I feel compelled to point out that that was the general view of the time, not just the church. The accepted idea was the women weren't actually PEOPLE, not really, and didn't actually have brains or thoughts.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh for...
[info]ekaterinv
2010-03-19 05:31 am UTC (link)
Actually, it wasn't. That was even a highly contested idea within the Church.

Poetry and essays by non-church people (and some in the church), including some very popular female writers, court cases, and just generally how people lived day-to-day show that women were considered quite human by most of society. Their rights were different from mens', and depended, like mens', on the strata of society they inhabited. But they were most definitely considered people. Men fell in love with them, adored their mothers, were fond of their daughters, cared about their sisters. We've got lots of correspondence that shows these facts. Women ruled countries even.

The "women weren't considered people" idea, when it comes to broader society, is largely a relic of a group of historians maligning the Middle Ages, starting with the self-titled "Renaissance". Later historians picked up on it, ignoring everything that didn't fit their preconceptions. In the mid-20th century, a group of influential historians who adored ancient Rome and hated Christianity fleshed out this incorrect idea even more.

The idea that women didn't do anything because women couldn't possibly have done anything because they were so over-the-top repressed was a great way to keep modern women from doing anything. Shakespeare did have sisters, and successful ones at that. Some of the greatest and most popular religious visionaries in the High Middle Ages were women. Almost everyone prayed to Mary. We're not talking a golden age of gender equality here, but women saw themselves as people, and most men saw them as people too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Oh for...
[info]kuromitsu
2010-03-19 01:01 pm UTC (link)
What [info]ekaterinv said. The "women weren't considered people back then" thing drives me up the wall because really, if nothing else, just look at literature and history around the time. Wife of Bath, courtly love, many of Shakespeare's female characters, all those abbesses and queens, there were even powerful regents and queen consorts (Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of France, etc.), acclaimed poets, etc... Sure, relatively few women had direct influence on political issues for a variety of reasons, and it's not like misogyny what we call today sexism didn't exist back then, but women were considered people. In fact, I think women were generally better off during and around the Middle Ages than during and even after the Enlightenment (o hai Rousseau).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh for...
[info]telegramsam
2010-03-19 01:04 pm UTC (link)
I think a lot of women's history was shoved under the carpet during the 19th and 20th century, unfortunately. We are left with a rather incomplete picture.

There have always been misogynists around in every time period, but they haven't always had complete control over culture, politics and society. People forget that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh for...
[info]kuromitsu
2010-03-19 01:25 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, western society was always patriarchal* but general attitudes to women, the extent of oppression, etc. were not always the same.

*sweeping generalization

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Oh for...
[info]ecchaniz0r
2010-03-20 12:02 am UTC (link)
I fully blame the Victorian era. Like, A LOT.

Man, the glorious rar my friend the medieval-lit badass (she's going for her master's N GLASGOW asdfhjd envy) has about the sanitized, doinky Victorian ideas of how the middle ages were. The GLORIOUS RAR.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh for...
[info]octavia
2010-03-21 06:21 pm UTC (link)
Yes! I've taken to blaming the nineteenth century for a whole lot of bullcrap, actually. From 'Medieval people thought the earth was flat' to views of sexuality tto views of women - all kind of things we're still fighting to this day.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Oh for...
[info]kuromitsu
2010-03-19 01:05 pm UTC (link)
"misogyny and what we call today sexism..."

orz

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Oh for...
[info]octavia
2010-03-21 06:45 pm UTC (link)
That's so interesting. I'm going to have to look that up. Can you point me in a direction?

In all these cases I think it's incredibly important to keep in mind that child abuse is not necessarily perpetrated by pedophiles. Psychologists differentiate between the two for a reason. There are a hell of a lot of child molesters who don't have a fixed attraction to children, or aren't at all attracted to the gender of the persons they molest. There are all kinds of situations and circumstances that can foster child abuse. Obviously Church institutions (and possibly teachings) have been instrumental in creating many of those circumstances, and that's something that should be looked at. Failing to note that and simply pointing at all the guilty being pedophiles, and thus different to begin with, would shift any blame from the Church and its own particularly damaging climate, and that would be more than irresponsible.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map