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)


[info]indis_earfalas
2010-03-19 04:30 am UTC (link)
I can honestly say, as a practising Catholic, that I hate "The Church" at this point. I won't leave my parish, because I do believe in the invisible man and his zombie son, and on a local level it's all good. It's the higher-up's that are cocking it up for everyone else, literally, as had been demonstrated countless times.

Shit like THIS is why individual churches are starting to go broke and why there are hardly any young priests around (ours is the youngest in our area and he's 65 ffs).

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.

That can only be a good thing. Maybe they'll finally pull their heads out of their arses ... but I won't hold my breath.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]dodge_and_weave
2010-03-19 11:17 am UTC (link)
Totally. I'm not actively going now, but I miss my church. So much pisses me off though right now about the top of the chain, but the church itself- awesome.

My dad is in his late 60's, has been first gen very active Italian-american Roman Catholic his whole life, and he even says he thinks we're due for a huge fracture. At least in the US, he thinks we might develop a sort of American Catholic that keeps some of the basic beliefs, updates a lot of things for current times, and ignores things coming out of the Vatican.

I was really shocked when he said this knowing how devout he's been.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]telegramsam
2010-03-19 12:51 pm UTC (link)
"At least in the US, he thinks we might develop a sort of American Catholic that keeps some of the basic beliefs, updates a lot of things for current times, and ignores things coming out of the Vatican."

You're more than welcome to visit my Lutheran church if you would like. :P

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]dodge_and_weave
2010-03-19 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Seriously thinking about it. Apparently my mom's side was Lutheran since it existed and then my great-grandmother was ignored after she married a Catholic.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]telegramsam
2010-03-19 09:18 pm UTC (link)
Hahah, well if it's ELCA, go for it. If it's Missouri Synod, go and see what the individual congregation is like (they tend to be conservative about on the same level as your typical Methodist church). Anything else and you're possibly out in ultra-conservative whackadoodle town depending, but those two are the most common types of Lutheran churches anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]issendai
2010-03-19 04:30 pm UTC (link)
The idea of an American Catholic church has been kicking around for a while, though yeah, I'm surprised to hear that someone devout is talking about it.

I'd like to see an American Catholic church--or any RC offshoot that liberalizes the church's ideals while asserting the same legitimacy as the current RC church--but I'm worried about what that will do to the RC church. Will we end up with one liberal church with a mostly Western constituency, and one violently reactionary church with a mostly third-world constituency? The Roman Catholic church could do (even more) hideous damage in the third world if it decides to go (even more) crazy as a result of a successful challenge to its authority and a loss of its more liberal members.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]telegramsam
2010-03-19 04:36 pm UTC (link)
If all the more liberal elements splinter off, yes, you'll be left with one extremely liberal institution and one extremely conservative institution with no-one there to challenge either viewpoint and the moderate element will be left sitting high & dry.

This is basically what has/is happening with the Episcopal/Anglican church and it's not a pretty sight at all.

I think it's high time the moderates of the world asserted themselves more vocally but sadly they are not very good at doing so, in churches or in politics as a whole.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]inalasahl
2010-03-19 05:04 pm UTC (link)
I really don't see the point of schism. The U.S. bishops are at least as big a problem as anyone in Rome.

If one was willing to just toss out the Magisterium completely, than what the heck is the point of being Catholic? Why not just become Anglican or Lutheran or Episcopalian?

Plus, I don't understand why the liberals should leave, when they're not the problem.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]issendai
2010-03-19 07:31 pm UTC (link)
Presumably the more liberal bishops would schism as well, while the more traditional ones would stay with the Roman Catholic church. I'm not well enough versed in the state of the U.S. bureaucracy to make any more accurate predictions.

Being Catholic involves a hell of a lot more than obeying the Vatican. Why abandon your religion just because the higher-ups are reactionary fucktards?

Plus, I don't understand why the liberals should leave, when they're not the problem.

Until the College of Cardinals elects a more liberal Pope, the problem's not going to budge. Sucks, but as long as you have a top-down nonelected leadership and that leadership chooses not to listen to its constituency, you have limited recourse.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]bobafeis
2010-03-19 10:48 pm UTC (link)
It was actually a fairly active topic for debate in my family and neighborhood when I was younger. More and more American Catholics are realizing that what the church says and what they actually believe (or at least are comfortable following) don't mesh.

The Church itself is part of the problem, though. Half of the orders have their own doctrines and beliefs that have nothing to do with the rest of the group, and those are some of the orders that are on the upswing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]fionnabhair
2010-03-22 10:47 pm UTC (link)
Isn't that what's traditionally know as 'á la carte' Catholicism. (I'm Irish, and while not Catholic myself, all my Catholic friend (i.e. every single one of my contemporaries, but me) counted themselves as such).

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]solesakuma
2010-03-21 04:17 pm UTC (link)
... First: there are Western countries in the Third World.
Second: I assure you, there are liberal Catholics everywhere.
At least oin my country, where the Church has tons of power and is really conservative, people do question it even when they're devout. Plus for all the damages it makes, seriously, I've seen the Church - or rather individual priests - do amazing work in places nobody else dares.

Yeah, the Third World is poor. It doesn't mean it's stupid as well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]issendai
2010-03-21 04:44 pm UTC (link)
This is true, and I'm sorry to have made sweeping assumptions. I also know individual Catholics and small Catholic organizations are doing amazing work--if anything, Catholicism has my unending respect for the way it inspires people to self-sacrifice and service for others.

I don't think the Third World is stupid. I do think it's more conservative than wealthier countries, on average, and that plus the power imbalances and information-flow issues common in poorer countries can make some regions dangerously easy to influence. The Catholic church has historically been eager to exploit these regions, so an increasingly conservative and embattled theoretical future church is a danger.

Mind you, just about every large organization that can find an excuse to exploit these regions has. I'm not singling out the Catholic church. (If anything, American evangelicals are the newest contender--see Uganda.) It's just that the RC church is the topic under discussion at the moment.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]senor_pinata
2010-03-19 12:46 pm UTC (link)
Same. I'm not really practicing now (and my very Catholic mother finally switched to my Methodist dad's church anyway) but I've known a ton of wonderful people—priests, nuns, and parishioners—on the local level. But the higher-ups have poisoned the system.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]telegramsam
2010-03-19 12:55 pm UTC (link)
I've met a couple genuinely nice R.C. priests... and a few raging douchewaffles. And some very friendly nuns in my time too, and I have R.C. friends who are made of awesome.

I don't think it's the people down on the ground at all (other than, obviously, the child molesters themselves, who need to be locked up somewhere far, far away). Which is why this situation really really really baffles me. The Vatican seem so COMPLETELY out of touch with what's going on outside of their little bubble of a city. Makes me wonder why anyone even listens to them at all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ayezur
2010-03-19 02:33 pm UTC (link)
Whacky funfact - I'm being baptized and confirmed in May.

I chose a great time to get in on the action, y/n?

OTOH, as it's been pointed out to me, believing fervently in an ideal while speaking out against the leadership is how most of us stateside got through the last administration.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]inalasahl
2010-03-19 05:09 pm UTC (link)
I'm being baptized and confirmed in May.
Congratulations! Have you decided on a name yet?

OTOH, as it's been pointed out to me, believing fervently in an ideal while speaking out against the leadership is how most of us stateside got through the last administration.
This

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tianxiaode
2010-03-19 03:22 pm UTC (link)
This.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]also_not_a_pipe
2010-03-20 04:36 pm UTC (link)
The Church really doesn't seem to realize how much damage it's doing to the Church. I'm kind of agnostic-pagan (one goddess essentially slapped me upside the head and said "hey genius, over here!" The rest, I don't know if they're there or not since there's equal lack of proof or disproof for them all), but I was raised Irish Catholic. Catholicism never really clicked with me, but it was going to Catholic high school and learning what the Church actually teaches that made me feel good about leaving and not looking back.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map