The revelations are multiplying, and the Vatican’s astoundingly inept efforts at damage control are making the situation even worse. In just the last couple of days:
It seems clear enough that this controversy is not going away any time soon. The question now is whether the Pope will address it himself.
Please share widely!
I know the basic stuff – church closings from a cash crunch, and the Bishop taking flight from the jurisdiction where the crimes were committed. But were there long-term consequences for church and religious school attendance, revenues, and so forth?
…as to what the Church and specifically this Pope must do to rectify the situation. It seems pretty reasonable. I don’t understand how it hurts Apostolic Succession to demote Bishops, since I assume nobody is suggesting that anyone ordained by a demoted Bishop would no longer be considered ordained.
the tenures of Pope Benedict, and his predecessor, Pope John Paul, were conservative efforts to return to the ways before Pope John XXIII, and Vatican II tried to liberalize and modernize the Church. Since John Paul was around so long, he had remade the corp of Bishops, and the College of Cardinals, the ruling class of the Church and the source of future Popes so that any decisions and new Popes chosen will by made by like minded, conservative Cardinals, insuring that nothing will change for the positive. In short, there is no incentive, and much less desire to change their ways, hence their attitude.
John Paul was Pope for about one month. You of course meant John Paul II.
<
p>John Paul II can only be called ‘conservative’ against the backdrop of secular modernity. Within the church itself, and set against it’s history and momentum, he’s a moderate, more akin to Obama, trying to point in the right direction, if not able to go the distance…
<
p>John Paul II took the names “John” and “Paul” to both honor John Paul I, who lasted only a few months in the office, and to honor both John XXIII, who initiated Vatican II and Paul VI, who saw Vatican II to completion. John Paul I was the successor to Paul VI but due to his short reign, John Paul II can be considered the first full pope after Vatican II. A big deal, for cause, was made when Ratzinger chose ‘Benedict’ as his papal name… harkening back to a pre-Vatican II papacy.
<
p> There is cause to believe that internecine warfare between John Paul II and the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, a fellow named Ratzinger, was fierce and quite dug in. For example, Ratzinger condemned ‘liberation theology’ whilst John Paul II used it as a playbook in Poland specifically and against communism in general. Whilst the official position of the church was against homosexuality, John Paul II was careful and constant in his assertion of the dignity every every human. As the first post-Vatican II pontiff he was, no doubt, walking a tightrope between hidebound tradition and what can be termed Catholic modernity. Also, it was Ratzinger, as we now know, who oversaw the church response to the abuse scandals and who may have kept John Paul II in the dark about it’s depth and breadth.
<
p>The ascension of Ratzinger to the papacy upon the death of John Paul II can be seen, I believe, as a general failure of the papacy of John Paul II, a truly modern pope. He wasn’t perfect, to be sure (especially regarding women), but within the history of the catholic church he wasn’t ‘conservative’ in the least.
Id have ‘sixed’ this since I agree with the notion that JPII was a moderating force acting to thwart the excesses of Vatican II while also ensuring those reforms became permanent, but I would disagree with this characterization of Ratzinger. In many ways he was the perfect successor to JPII. The Church needed a quieter transition figure to pave the way between the long papacy of John Paul II and cement his legacy before taking a radical leap in a different direction. There are many younger Cardinals from South America who would take the Church in a more liberal/liberation direction, and many younger African Cardinals that would take it in a more traditionalist direction. Ratzinger was needed to ensure continuity. Rest assured though the next Pope will likely be from the Global South since that is where the majority of the Church is coming from.
<
p>Anyway as Prefect for the CDF Ratzinger acted as JPIIs enforcer in many wars ensuring that most of the bad bishops were censured.
<
p>It is also important to note that it has been Benedict that has been most vigorous in responding to abuse and abuse allegations while JPII infamously kept Cardinal Law protected from criminal charges and kept the notorious bishop of WI in place seeking to forgive rather than reprimand. The ‘rottweiler’ is a far less forgiving man and has been far more effective in demanding the resignations of bishops and cleaning house. He has just been completely inept at defending himself and making his proactive actions more well known, instead adopting a completely counter-productive bunker mentality dismissing all secular media as a conspiracy against the papacy. Some of it surely is, and the Dowds of the world are explicitly anti-Catholic and anti-Papal and are using this scandal as an opportunity to beat the Pope up. But many other more thoughtful critics including Ross Douthat and EJ Dionne love their Church and wish it would stop hiding.
<
p>In many ways this Papacy is entering into a second Babylonian Captivity and that is not a good sign.
John Paul II was long-serving and revered. I suspect that even the Vatican knows that major, even revolutionary, changes are needed in the next ten to twenty years — changes so dramatic that, had they been enacted by the Pope that followed John Paul II, would have been viewed as an implicit criticism of John Paul II.
<
p>I therefore agree the Joseph Ratzinger is a transition figure. I think he was chosen with the view that he would be be more conservative (even reactionary) than John Paul II, and because he was older when elevated, would likely have a short reign.
<
p>I believe the next Pope will make the following changes:
<
p>I believe that these changes are required if the Catholic church is to stay alive. Coming, as they now will, after the papacy of Joseph Ratzinger, they will be viewed as a rejection of his extreme conservatism — thus preserving and protecting the legacy of John Paul II.
…but I’m not holding my breath for such radical changes. A good first step would be to ditch the attitude that the discussion is closed. I’d love to see an American Cardinal elected (preferably not tainted by what we are currently discussing if any such exist) because an American would have grown up accustomed to the idea of openness in debate and religious pluralism.
because that would mean that American power would have waned substantially first. There’s no way that the Pope will come from a nation with a dominant military and economy. Just won’t happen.
<
p>
<
p>As for BT’s comments above, I don’t think that they’ll begin ordaining women. BC? Maybe. Celibacy? Dunno. But, so long as nuns are such a source of the good that the Catholic church does — and as source of labor, so to speak — I don’t think that the RCC is looking to change that aspect soon.
The Catholic Church is not a victim. Remember, the first step in dealing with a problem is admitting you have one to begin with. The Catholic Church is not going to fix itself and become a force for good in the world unless and until it realizes it has a huge problem on its hand, purely of its own doing.
<
p>The notions that the church A) needs to change and 2) is aware of this need to change as a guiding principle is not at all evident to those within the church. And the idea that the college of cardinals has some master road-map planned out has no supporting evidence to it whatsoever. You can salve your wounds with the hopes that Benedict is merely ‘transitional’, but I’m pretty certain he’s been the center of gravity for reactionary Vatican for many years.
<
p>Vatican II was bitterly opposed and remains so to this day. There are those, and apparently Ratzinger is amongst them, who truly believe that going back to a pre-Vatican II ecumenicalism is the right thing to do. But even those, like John Paul II who might have felt the need for a change would not, have not, suggested anything we would consider truly radical. The choice isn’t between instantaneous and radical change, here and now and Ratzinger… it’s between Ratzinger and the incremental change of an institution greater than 1700 years old…
<
p>
<
p>John Paul II’s actions, with respect to abusive priests can be seen, as you describe, or they can be seen as a those of a man who thought, or was led to believe, that these incidents truly were isolated. That we, all the way here in 2010… now know that they were not informs our hindsight but gives us no cause to criticize the sight of others in the time. Ratzinger was the guy sitting on the lid of the pressure cooker, hoping to hold it in place. It nearly blew off with the Boston Archdiocese mess, but is pretty much exploding before our eyes right now… many years, many drip drip drip of accusations, after the fact. I think the “Ratzinger as ally’ meme can only be applied after the fact of intelligences escaping to the media about the extent and breadth of both the abuse and the pitiable reactions to the abuse…
<
p>The pope may be considered infallible in matters of doctrine, but that does not make him omnipotent nor in complete control of the Vatican: Ratzinger and JPII were in, more or less, a constant state of tension about the direction of the church. I’m certain others were involved as well. I’m sure Benedict is fighting an interior fight right now with some other equally powerful Cardinal… And I think that the identity or regional extraction of the next Pope is, in no way, decided.
I think the right question is:
<
p>Will secular authorities hold these men accountable for their apparent crimes.
<
p>Here is what Sean O’Malley said about Joseph Ratzinger’s actions:
<
p>I will find such a positive characterization of Joseph Ratzinger’s behavior far more convincing when it comes from secular authorities given full and unfettered access to sworn testimony of Joseph Ratzinger and Bernard Law (and others) and all documentary evidence produced by a full and aggressive investigation. Somebody orchestrated this international conspiracy, and all evidence points to Joseph Ratzinger.
<
p>Until such an investigation is completed by independent secular authorities, such comments are just more public posturing by subordinates of the chief suspect — subordinates who are themselves still very much a part of this international organization that is still so utterly corrupt.
I’ve always wondered why Martha Coakley or the county DA with jurisdiction in the Boston case refrained from charging Cardinal Law.
That would have been Tom Reilly.
I’ve always wondered why Tom Reilly or the county DA with jurisdiction in the Boston case refrained from charging Cardinal Law.
Take out the names and the question still is whether state law enforcement did all they could to prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law, and if not, why not.
It has always been my view that Cardinal Law was treated differently than 99.9% of the rest of us would have been treated.
I have disagreed with many of you when it comes to Pope Benedict, but I have always maintained that Cardinal Law belongs defrocked and behind bars in a MA state prison and not continuing as a voting member of the College of Cardinals while enjoying overseeing a palatial villa in Southern Italy. That does not meet any definition of justice, secular or Christian. It is a disgrace our civil leaders didn’t do more, and it is the biggest black mark on JPII that he forgave and forgot something that was frankly unforgivable and certainly has yet to be forgotten by the many abused and the countless multitudes that left the Church because of this scandal.
According to published reports of the time, like this, Tom Reilly “lacked the legal tools” to bring indictments.
<
p>In many abuse cases, the statute of limitations had elapsed. In the case of the cover-up, he claimed that confessions were explicitly exempted from mandatory reporting requirements (after specific lobbying from the Catholic church).
<
p>From the above piece:
<
p>I think it should be noted, again, that Catholics are disproportionally represented in the Massachusetts Bar, Judiciary, and legislature.
And if not, has anyone tried to get them?
Instead of addressing anything, they are attacking the accusers, and trying to diminish them. They seem to have learned noting since Boston.
In many ways Benedict has in fact done far more than any other Church leader to address this crisis, he is a thousand times better than John Paul II on this issue. Yet he has humbly refused to publicize the good he has done while stubbornly refusing to answer the many charges that have been emanating against him from all corners. While it might be nice to simply hope and pray the accusers will go away and the record can speak for itself, in this modern world with its 24/7 newscycle and built in mistrust of any entrenched institution and its leaders, he has no choice but to speak out and defend himself, his Church, and the 99% of its clergy that have done great work throughout the world and in some cases done great work to expunge what Benedict rightly calls ‘filth and a cancer upon our Church’ in the form of sexual predators within the priesthood.
…”the strongest ally we had”.
<
p>Much like Whitey Bulger was the FBI’s strongest ally in cracking down on organized crime in Boston.
I can’t believe how they have handled this. Allowing these predators to continue to be around children is just horrific. And then to stand there as if they are innocent victims being persecuted by the public is just mind boggling.
<
p>I have many issues with the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic. They teach children to obey the teachings of the bible or be banished to an eternity in a fiery hell for all of their afterlife.* To me, this alone is a sick form of child abuse. This type of teaching also makes children far more vulnerable, because they can be sexually abused, or abused in any way, without speaking out because they fear the punishment of hell.
<
p>*please note that you can avoid the fires of hell by confessing your sins and repenting, then receiving communion. Kids may have had to confess their sins to the very priest who has been abusing them. Not to mentions that confession is great “alone” time with your priest. Fine for an adult — extremely intimidating for a child. Can’t even imagine what confession was like for a child who had been abused by their priest. What a horrific, horrific thing to have had to experience.
I would argue that young Catholics are taught more to obey the teachings of the Church as opposed to the teachings of the Bible, which may be part of the problem and certainly the two are not always and necessarily the same. In school we were all taught growing up to always go to a trusted adult if any other adult (including one whom we also should have been able to trust) was hurting us. I understand it can be very difficult to discuss, but if there were parents who sided with the abusing priests over their abused children, then shame on them too.
When I was growing up(60’s & 70″s), the only thing we were taught was that adults were always right. Abuse was not talked about and it was blatantly ignored. I don’t know when everything changed, but I do know that when my daughter was in K-4 (in the 90’s), they were teaching how to protect yourself from and report abuse; how to protect yourself from abduction, etc. So thank goodness for that.
I am sure public schools were just as deficient as Catholic ones addressing abuse back in the day. I know for a fact that Cambridge back then had a similarly notorious record of shuffling abusing teachers around from school to school.
I’d like to see some backup for it. You might be right, but you’ll pardon my not simply accepting your say-so.
Your defensiveness on this topic is well-documented, so some extremity of emotion is to be expected. But this claim is beyond the pale.
<
p>Cambridge had a “similarly notorious record” for the sexual abuse and rape of hundreds if not thousands of children?
<
p>Let’s have it. Now.
… just had to make sure we were accurate for his coming documentation…
Never said it had thousands, just said it had a similar record of moving abusers from school to school.
You wrote:
<
p>I appreciate that, for whatever reason, you fervently want to believe this to be true. Since you haven’t offered any links supporting your claim, I tried to find some on your behalf. I have found no allegations of Cambridge public schools “shuffling abusing teachers around from school to school.” Not even one episode.
<
p>There was, on the other hand, a high-profile case involving Buckingham Browne & Nichols, a private school in Cambridge. Perhaps this is what you are remembering.
<
p>I’m really not trying to bust your chops here. You’ve made a fairly extraordinary claim — that Cambridge public schools “had a similarly notorious record …” It appears to me that you’ve over-reached.
<
p>If you have any evidence to support your claim, this would be a really good time to present it.
… equivalency. There hasn’t been any evidence of equivalency, so it’s incumbent upon you to give good reasons or evidence. Until then, it’s unsubstantiated conjecture. In this case, unsubstantiated conjecture making a case defending an institution that, without evidence of equivalency, appears guilty of the indefensible, is bound to offend.
My elementary education fit neatly into the 1980s decade. We went over such things repeatedly in both school and scouts. At first the focus was on strangers, but later we started hearing more about how even adults we know could prove untrustworthy, and not let the fact that we know them stop us from reporting their misdeeds to someone else.
I am tired of the Protestant trope that Catholics do not follow the Bible. We do. And I would argue we follow it better than most mainline Protestants these days. Sola scriptura leaves with with what you got, a protestant church that is divided thousands of ways with many thousands of denominations all speaking apart with different voices. Since everyone interprets the Bible differently you can have a range of churches that all use the various contradicting elements of scripture to make there point. Yet the Catholic Church through the Magisterium and the Canon Law has determined which parts of the Bible need to be emphasized and have produced numerous guidelines and codes to follow that take the essence of scripture and make them practically applicable. It is in this way that the Catholic tradition best articulates the sometimes archaic and contradicting voices found in Scripture and apply them to the fallen world we live in utilizing some of the greatest minds in the Christian tradition.
<
p>Under Sola Scriptura for every Barth and Bonhoffer there is an Olsteen and a Robertson.
<
p>Protestants, particularly the calvinist strain, also removed all the elements of spirituality and mysticism that made Christianity wonderful. Lent, fasting, the mystery of the Holy Eucharist, Marian devotions, confessions, these aspects of a sacramental church when lived fully are wonderful complements to the Scriptures. I left the Catholic church briefly since I felt it told its flock what to do and treated us like infants combined with really reading my Bible and discovering that there might be more to Christianity than what the Pope said, yet I came back because the Bible was not enough for me, you need a fully participatory sacramental life to fully encounter Christ. And I am thankful that many Protestants are rediscovering these things, including Lent, Marian devotions, the rosary, communion, and even confession. I do find it amusing when they write about how ‘amazing’ these ‘new’ experiences are-because we have been doing them for two thousand years 😉
<
p>By the way this was meant as a good natured theological ribbing, I just always find it funny when my evangelical brother rediscovers awesome spiritual practices and then later finds out they are Catholic.
the ‘my brother’ in the byline refers to Christopher my protestant brother in Christ while my ‘evangelical brother’ is my actual biological brother. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
LOL. Centuries of theological debate, along with several schisms, condensed into one sentence. ;D
…and yes I did see the good-natured ribbing reference toward the end. I have been known to defend Catholicism against charges from the more conservative side of Protestants that they don’t believe in the Bible at all. I went to Catholic high school where religious studies were required and that included quite a bit of Bible study. Ironically, I’m personally more inclined to question the Biblical literacy of the evangelical Protestants many of whom insist on a literal reading and use the Good Book to justify intolerance.
It was Augustine who suggested that the Old Testament be read with the knowledge that Christ and his sacrifice existed throughout. So whenever we see the vengeful, wrathful, ‘old testament God’ remember that the grace of Christ sacrificed on the Cross is being offered to all throughout time and space. So literalism is really going against the grain of nearly 1500 years of Christian tradition.
<
p>Just wondering which denomination are you a part of?
…which is the denomination the vast majority of Congregationalist churches have joined, thus claiming an almost 400 year old tradition in MA. It is a progressive denomination, but also includes some conservative local churches. I have been active in the Association and Conference (VERY loosely similar to dioceses/archdioceses, but with next to no authority over local churches). I’m proud of my denomination and while reluctant to evangelize in the traditional sense I do point to it as proof that not all Christians belong to the “Religious Right”. We talk about “taking the Bible seriously, but not literally” and that “God is still speaking” to us in a way that allows our faith to not get stuck in history.
<
p>I actually don’t think I agree with Augustine on this one. The Old Testament was written before Christ and I believe that context needs to be acknowledged. It is after all the stand-alone scriptures for the Jews, but belongs in the Christian Bible as well to serve as background for the early church.
<
p>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
— Mathew 5:17–20
<
p>Jesus hisself says that you need to go back and look at the law (old testament) to understand Him.
…largely based on the scriptural reference you cited. What I don’t see is the other way around wherein some read the Old Testament as if Jesus were always the intended culmination.
…in at least a couple of cases (divorce comes to mind) Jesus broadcasts loud and clear that He intends to alter the former teaching.
Some early Christians, in fact, wished to dispense with the Hebrew scripture entirely. (That was before everything was neatly anthologized into a “Bible”.) The gnostics believed that different gods were involved in the two sets of documents.
<
p>Personally I find the Protestant project of figuring out how to harmonize everything that has come down to us interesting but unsuccessful.
I believe Augustine meant that in the spirit of that passage from Matthew, understand that the law came before Christ but that it can only be fulfilled through Christ and has to be understood through him i.e the sacrifice on the Cross and the grace emanating from that.
<
p>I’ve attended services at the UCC during my apostate days 😉 though eventually found the UMC more to my liking at the time.
My gf is the daughter of UMC pastors so I spent Easter at a UMC church. Her dad was trained in the UCC but dislikes the way it is governed and switched to the UMC. If I had to be a Protestant I would be a member of Park Street Church which is a conservative (non-UCC I believe) Congregationalist church. Stepping in there is like stepping into what a congregationalist church must have felt like in the 1800s, not only because of the historic structure of the church but also its music and commitment to orthodoxy, or a High Church Anglican (though might as well be Catholic then). I have nothing against the mainline per se, and for a period of time considered myself a proud member, but I do think that democratic churches tend to lead to more schisms and divisions and less authority on issues of what is and isn’t moral or orthodox within Christianity. So I like the authority that comes with having a traditional episcopal structure, I also like the liturgy, the sacrificial aspects, the mystical aspects, the universalist component, transubstantiation, the Latin Mass, and the orthodox approach to theology but always with an emphasis on reasoned faith.
<
p>As a Christian though are you worried that even the mainline is slipping into unitarian/univeralist tendencies in some respects? I imagine that even as a liberal Protestant you still hold issues like Christ’s divinity, the trinity, etc. to be beyond debate?
… that KBusch was being anything more than dispassionately analytical about the history. At least I didn’t read any ‘worry’ in anything he was saying.
… I’m not sure I’ve read anything from KBusch that would hints at his actual religious status. As such, I’m a little taken aback by the assumptions implied in your last paragraph.
I have no concerns whatever about Protestants “slipping into” Unitarian Universalism. I might use the word “ascending unto” in place of “slipping into” as I perhaps view the terrain differently from you.
<
p>I have never understood why Protestantism’s New Covenant theory, which throws out a huge amount of what many Jews would unquestionably call “law”, doesn’t, say, throw out the Ten Commandments as well — on purely logical grounds. I’m not sure Marcion’s old god/new god solution is satisfactory, but the divine advocacy of genocide in Samuels I poses, I think, significant problems for the coherence of mainline Protestant doctrine.
<
p>The funny thing about that is that early Church fathers, who were in a minority and facing the mockery of Greek and Roman heathens, were also troubled by these problems. (In the Confessions, Augustine frets over it.)
<
p>Your very modern mainline Protestant is oddly untroubled.
He’s a worry wort. He also fretted over stealing an apple when he was five so take it for what it’s worth:)
Reading about the pedophile scandals of the 1990s, the probable murder of an altar boy by convicted and now defrocked pedophile Father Richard Lavigne, the hasty departure of the Springfield Diocese’s bishop who had a pedophilial past, all this ruined my belief in the hierarchy.
<
p>It became impossible to square the “teachings” of the Church with the hypocrites who made them. I was born just before Vatican II and grew up with folk masses. I had had good priests and a nice seminary in town. My personal experiences with priests were all good.
<
p>You can’t blame John Paul II for the pedophilia scandal, but you can blame him for fiddling while Rome burned. He was pals with drug addict, plagiarist, pedophile Marcial Maciel. At least, Ratzinger, to his credit, had him removed from active ministry.
<
p>Absolute power doesn’t corrupt absolutely, but it does a pretty good job. The Church earned this scandal, worked hard for it, and although parishioners may be free of its taint, my guess is the majority of the hierarchy and a good portion of the priesthood have blood on their hands.
Does anyone remember the name of the book written by the Boston Globe on the Boston Priest abuse scandal?
First hit on “boston globe book priest abuse scandal”
<
p>http://www.boston.com/globe/sp…
<
p>The book is called “Betrayal”.
Lead Us Not Into Temptation by Jason Berry.
<
p>His book covers the first allegations in America to get media attention, the first lawsuit, and the discovery of the Church’s pedophilial underground railroad.
<
p>The book also follows the failed attempt of Father Tom Doyle (once a rising star working for the papal nuncio in Washington,D.C.) and Father Michael Peterson, the priest/psychiatrist who founded St. Luke’s Institute, which treats pedophile priests, to clue the American bishops into the pedophile abuse. Father Peterson died of AIDS in 1987.
I completely understand why you left, I did for a time myself, but I would add that the vast majority of priests and bishops are completely innocent of either pedophilia or covering it up. While pedophilia is a problem throughout the Church, and throughout any organization that deals with children, there are certain dioceses that dealt with the problem much better. For instance Chicago has seen very few incidents and the Cardinal has been very strict when they have occurred. The Archdiocese of Chicago has done a much better job dealing with the crisis. Our schools, churches, and doors remain open and we haven’t had the financial crisis Boston did.
<
p>That said, obviously the tendency to cover up is not unique to Boston, but I would also argue its not unique to Catholicism or even to religious institutions. Some men are desperate enough and evil enough to cover their asses. The Church is the bride of Christ, and while the men who have served the Church might not have always lived up to His standards, the Church has always been a faithful and perfected bride even if its individual members have not been.
but never offer any proof at all. We’re still waiting on proof of the shifting of pedophiles around the Cambridge Public Schools. Let’s also have some proof on this assertion:
<
p>
<
p>Please provide evidence of one single organization that has a “problem” with pedophilia that compares in any way to that of the Catholic Church.
<
p>And while you’re Googling that up, let’s get the evidence on the Cambridge Public Schools you claim exists. Thanks.
… would seem to equivocate those who covered these things up in this case with other hypothetical (though pervectly reasonable) cover-ups by non-church officials on any of a host of crimes.
<
p>What this fails to acknowledge though, is that beyond the culpability of individuals here, there is an institutional culpability too. I’m certainly outraged at the SCC, Enron, and Lehman Bros., but none of that eases my concerns over the institutional cover-ups of the church.
<
p>It simply is not a mitigating factor whatsoever, despite your repeated introductions of it into the conversation as such.
Given how widespread this is and the mere fact that Church is a human institution, I’m not sure you can call it faithful and perfected. Only God can know for sure how close the Church has come to that ideal, but there have been plenty of times the Church as an institution and not just the individuals in it has lost its way.
religious were either good or not a problem.
<
p>I couldn’t square the corruption, organizational or intellectual, that is the Church hierarchy today. I cannot take the magisterium seriously. I even read Garry Wills’ Why I Am a Catholic. A great book by a great man, but I was unpersuaded.
<
p>The Church, my parish, was my spiritual home. I’m now spiritually homeless. I thought at first it was my hejira, my exile. It was a painful experience, like getting divorced. I was bitter. Now, I’m halfway to Buddhism these days. Now, my homelessness is my lack of attachment. My regrets are few.
<
p>I was never into the dogma. The bride of Christ stuff doesn’t do it for me personally. For me, the mystery was always the human mystery.
<
p>
Against civil law? Statutory rape? Child sex abuse?
<
p>What is it about the Catholic Church and its followers who view themselves against civil law?
<
p>It even gets down to the absolutely petty, where you find Catholic parishioners parking in front of fire hydrants, blocking crosswalks, and obstructing fire lanes in order to attend Mass.
<
p>Every time I see an illegally parked car in front of some Catholic church, I think of all those priests who were allowed to violate children and civil law because they thought themselves immune to the rules.
…considering that St. Paul specifically admonished early Christians to adhere to civil authority.
The tax exempt status and other ‘perks’ afforded religious groups is an American phenomenon. Since your denomination at one time was the only recognized branch in MA and ALL citizens of the commonwealth had to pay taxes to it, and this was similar in other colonies with different denominations, the idea of public supported religion has always been ingrained in American jurisprudence. The more amenable solution to all as the country got more religiously diverse was to go the other direction and make churches exempt from taxes as opposed to tax supported.
<
p>Interestingly in Iceland all religions are taxed supported by proportion to their membership, even ‘atheism’ somehow.
The Christian thing for a church to do is to pay its proper tax share to the state as Paul and Christ commanded, but the Second Coming might occur before people willingly give up their money.
The Church hierarchy, however, follows a higher authority–the Pope. He’s one of the world’s last monarchs, and one lacking the least sense of irony about that status.
<
p>Aside from that, churches have a hell of a lot of protection–too much as far as I’m concerned–under the First Amendment and subsequent case law.
…that anyone parked illegally is exempt from such restrictions just because they are attending Mass. As far as I’m concerned their legal status should be the same as any secular non-profit.
in my Town, if you park illegally anywhere near a religious building between Fri eve and Sunday night, you’re almost sure to not get a ticket.
<
p>Same goes for parking near the polling place on election day.
<
p>Also, feel free to violate parking time restrictions on Thanksgiving eve evening, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas eve evening, and Christmas Day.
In my town, for the longest time you could park illegally anywhere on sunday or monday and nit get a ticket. That was just because the parking enforcement officer was off.
…such as Thanksgiving and Christmas are often legitimately exempted from parking enforcement and are posted as such. Even if not specifically posted that is often the case. That is for time restrictions; you still shouldn’t block a driveway or hydrant.
There is enforcement in other places, but I’ve never seen a car ticketed near a house of worship between Friday even and Sunday night. It’s not just meters, it’s also the limit on parking for more than 2 hours.
<
p>As for Federal holidays, that applies to parking meters, but not to general parking regulations, for day or night time parking.
<
p>
<
p>The Town I live in has simply decided it has more important things to worry about than dealing with all the folks who would complain over these relatively small issues. It seems like a pretty good unofficial policy to me.
…has been that in many places weekends are also legitimately exempted from meter feeding and time limits as well.
I know my Town. Commercial districts have meter enforcement on Saturdays. Non-meter violations are enforced, loosely speaking, 24/7, except as I listed above.
<
p>That’s exactly why I prefaced my comments with phrases like “In my Town.” I suspect that if your experience included experience in my Town, you wouldn’t quibble with the experience in my Town.
Two more reports add to the increasingly compelling case against Joseph Ratzinger and the Vatican regarding their criminal conspiracy to protect sex abusers from secular authorities.
<
p>Yesterday, it was revealed that William Levada, Joseph Ratzinger’s replacement as head of the Congregation of the Faith, “reassigned a US priest and alleged child molester in the 1990s without warning parishioners” in sworn testimony given in the 2006 bankruptcy case of the Portland, Ore diocese. William Levada, as Cardinal, headed the diocese.
<
p>
<
p>Today, the AP reports that a US priest accused of sex abuse is still working in India (emphasis mine):
<
p>The conspiracy to protect these accused abusers from secular authorities continues.
Were there mandatory reporting requirements at the time of these alleged events and do current reporting laws require reporting of actions well into the past?
<
p>What is generally the statute of limitations on allegations of actual abuse or prosecuting for failure to report?
<
p>Is there any way extradition can be used if we in fact have the appropriate treaties?
<
p>I’m not necessarily expecting you to have these answers, but I’m concerned that legally there may be fewer crimes here than we assume. In other words, if there were no mandatory reporting law back in the 1970s, I’m not sure any Bishop who quietly reassigned a priest back then committed a crime, unless there is a way to make the Bishop out to be an accessory. We also have to be careful about ex post facto issues if we try to enforce a more recent law on an act that was committed further back.
We’re not talking about “back in the 1970s”, we’re talking about right now. Rev. Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul was moved from Greenbush, Minnesota to India — where he is still working as a priest. He was transferred to avoid secular authorities who are pursuing him on two counts of criminal sexual conduct, stemming from an alleged episode in 2004.
<
p>Not the 1970s, not the 1990s, but 2004 — two years after Bernard Law resigned in disgrace and fled for the sanctuary of the Vatican. Christopher, once again you seem eager to find reasons why “nothing can be done” and equally eager to ignore clear, present-day obstructions.
<
p>This criminal enterprise is still moving accused sex-abusers to avoid secular authorities (in this case from Minnesota to India), is still helping them avoid punishment, and is still allowing them to continue functioning as priests.
<
p>These two cases demonstrate that:
<
p>
<
p>This is not yesterday’s solved problem, this is an on-going criminal enterprise.
According to a report in this morning’s Globe, prosecutors are extraditing Mr. Jeyapaul (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>So US prosecutors say they are, in fact, attempting to extradite the accused abuser — who apparently isn’t so willing to return to the US after all. Apparently Mr. Jeyapaul is not telling the truth.
<
p>Meanwhile, the Vatican says the “local bishop in India refused [to hand over the alleged abuser].” Yeah, right. A strongly authoritarian Vatican, headed by Joseph Ratzinger, that has the reach to direct specific US parish priests about what politicians they can and cannot serve communion to (when the issue is abortion legislation) now claims to be powerless to force a local bishop to hand over an alleged abuser to secular US authorities. Uh huh. Sure.
<
p>What discipline has said “local bishop” imposed on Mr. Jeyapaul?
<
p>
<
p>This is a man who is accused of telling a fourteen year old girl (the same age as my youngest daughter) that he would “kill her family” if she refused to come into the rectory — where he allegedly forced her to perform oral sex on him and groped her.
<
p>If this criminally corrupt enterprise had a fraction of the outrage towards sex abusers like Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul that they demonstrate towards legislators who support the right of non-believing women to make their own choices about their own pregnancies, then Mr. Jeyapaul would be in custody in Minnesota today.
<
p>This episode exemplifies the disdain towards women, the disdain towards the laity, and the fundamental moral bankruptcy that still permeates this criminal enterprise.
<
p>There is absolutely nothing that prevents Joesph Palanivel Jeyapaul from boarding a Minnesota-bound airplane right now. I would think that the Vatican would be especially eager to make an aircraft available should suitable flight arrangements be an obstacle.
<
p>Once again, the actions of the Vatican speak far more loudly than their words.
…when talking about the 1970s. Whatever actions he has taken in the Vatican are not subject to our laws. So to use specifics and given the premise that he failed to warn parishioners of priestly abuse in the 1970s, I shall rephrase my questions with specifics.
<
p>By the 1990s would Levada have been legally required to report priestly abuse that happened in the 1970s? Could the abusing priest by then have been prosecuted on abuse charges? Were there mandatory reporting requirements in the 1970s, which Levada violated at the time?
<
p>Has the statute of limitations expired yet on Levada’s most recent alleged crime in the United States? If not can and will US authorities seek his extradition from the Vatican for the purpose of prosecution by the appropriate jurisdiction?
<
p>I agree it would be great if the Church took its own initiative to send people back to face justice, but I’ve been trying to focus on what the secular authorities really CAN do legally to force this issue.
I get that you are “trying to focus on what the secular authorities really CAN do legally to force this issue.”
<
p>You seem reluctant acknowledge the extraordinary lengths that the institution currently takes to evade, obstruct, and avoid investigations by secular authorities — all while having sanctimonious exchanges where you admit it might not be “faithful and perfected”.
<
p>Over the past few weeks, you asked for evidence that the institution was, in fact, acting as a criminal enterprise. You asked me to provide specifics about both the RICO statutes and the ways in which I believe the current behavior of this organization makes it subject to those statutes.
<
p>In my view, a key aspect of the piece about Mr. Levada is that it demonstrates his long-term commitment to executing the strategy of obstruction, evasion, and enabling formulated and articulated by Joseph Ratzinger. His behavior as bishop demonstrates the approach he is likely to take as prefect, replacing Joseph Ratzinger.
<
p>Are you willing, yet, to admit that this organization is behaving like a criminal enterprise (as specified in the RICO statutes)? Are you willing yet to admit that these men are still acting like criminals attempting to evade prosecution for their crimes?
<
p>Your attempted objectivity or neutrality comes across to me as your continuing desire to, like jconway, defend the indefensible behavior of the men who lead this organization.
I still don’t know how we can act on it. The closest I can come up with is how would we treat a multinational corporation that commits crimes in the United States. That seems to be the closest equivalent. I’m not enough of a lawyer to know for sure whether RICO can apply. I generally think of RICO as applying to organizations that exist for the purpose of criminal activity. I also hate penalizing people not directly involved. If we can’t use multinational corporation law then prosecute by diocese, but you can’t imprison institutions. The most we can do is assess financial penalties. I have always said that those alleged to be engaging in committing in criminal acts should be prosecuted, but I still don’t get how you propose to go after Levada if we can’t extradite. There are rules for prosecution which must be followed. I suppose another idea would be to revoke the church’s tax exempt status to pressure compliance.
Instead of shrugging your shoulders in “what shall we do” powerlessness, start with acknowledging that secular authorities must act — and then explore how.
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>I already cited and quoted the relevant RICO statutes on an earlier thread, and rather than address the substance of what the statutes actually say, you instead attempted to derail the conversation with a misrepresentation of my argument. I explicitly asked you to address the RICO question:
<
p>
<
p>You neglected to reply.
<
p>The RICO language is not that hard to understand — now that I’ve cited and quoted the relevant portions, and explained how I think the organization’s ongoing behavior meets the statutory standard, I think the burden is on you to defend your claim that it somehow doesn’t apply.
<
p>What might we do? We might do the same sort of things we do to any other criminal enterprise:
<
p>
<
p>It is certainly possible to arrest and prosecute individuals who operate criminal organizations. It is certainly possible to make it illegal to contribute financially to criminal organizations. What if Catholic dioceses in America were forced to reorganize as entities independent from the Vatican in order to continue to operate?
<
p>I don’t know if Mr. Levada, Mr. Law, or Mr. Ratzinger can be extradited. It is certainly possible to issue highly-publicized warrants for their arrest. It is certainly possible for the international community to brand these men as suspected criminals and force them into virtual house arrest in the Vatican.
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>Given what is now emerging, and what will continue to emerge, each and every lay person who continues to contribute to and participate in the ongoing life of this criminal enterprise is directly involved. When more of the laity begin to directly feel the response to the crimes they enable through their support of these suspected criminals, then perhaps that laity will be more motivated to force changes from within.
The line items above sound good except for number 3, which should only apply to those specific individuals who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy around children. By the way, you’re acting as the prosecution here; the burden remains on you to prove your case. I for one cringe everytime I read you describing the Church as a “criminal enterprise”. This is a very loaded term that conjures up images of the Mafia which very raison d’etre is to commit crimes, not a bonafide religious organization. I would strongly disagree with the point of your last paragraph that implicates every active lay Catholic. That leads us right back to your record of demonstrating anti-Catholic bigotry which has manifested in several of your posts going at least back to when you blamed the Church for the nut who killed Dr. Tiller. There ARE some who are leaving or at least not giving money, but you must remember and respect that local parishes in which people often grew up is an extended family. People are going to continue to be involved, especially if their own priest has not engaged in wrongdoing. I have acknowledged all along that secular authorities need to act, whether the Church likes it or not.
The distinction you continue to attempt to draw between “criminal enterprise” and the Vatican is, I argue, not supported by the existing RICO statute. Perhaps you can offer a cite to support your argument.
<
p>If a particular individual or company is clearly, publicly, and convincingly shown to be part of the Mafia, and another individual or group nevertheless offers material support, then I argue that the latter should be castigated (whether or not prosecuted).
<
p>When Catholics commit criminal acts — or, in their silence, encourage the commission of criminal acts — then it is disingenuous to claim “anti-Catholic bigotry” when such acts or silence are criticized.
<
p>Regarding your objection to my number (3), it exists because the organization has shown that it quite explicitly and intentionally strives to protect and shelter abusers. When that behavior is shown to have ceased (such as when the accused abusers are immediately and pro-actively reported to secular authorities for investigation, prosecution, and punishment), then — and only then — will I agree that item (3) can be limited to specific employees.
I absolutely CANNOT agree with either your characterization of every Catholic who doesn’t jump ship or your desire to keep even those who have never abused a child away from children. These points are completely contrary and offensive to my fundamental sense of fairness. You second paragraph point might be well taken, but the Church is NOT the Mafia. Plenty of people continue to support the good the Church does, and yes there is also plenty of good.
“I’ve already made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
<
p>The fact that you don’t like the implications doesn’t alter the reality that the RICO statutes do, in fact, appear to apply to the behavior of this organization. You have, so far, offered no defense other than your own bias in arguing to the contrary.
<
p>The American Catholic laity has a number of options that don’t involve “jumping ship” — unless, of course, you define “jumping ship” to anything that threatens the current hierarchical (and corrupt) structure.
<
p>Suppose several patients died from malpractice at a private pediatric hospital. Suppose it was shown that several — say five to six out of, say, one hundred — pediatricians at that hospital had falsified their credentials. Suppose that it was further shown that hospital administrators knew of the fraud and paid hush-money to victim’s families. Suppose those administrators intimidated those families in an effort to avoid disclosure to authorities. Suppose this hospital was part of a nationwide chain. Suppose it was shown that hospital administrators, at the direction of corporate headquarters, transferred the pediatricians to other facilities where they continued to practice and where more children died.
<
p>Suppose further investigation revealed that the CEO had, as as President of the chain, formulated and distributed an official policy detailing a process for such transfers and ordering subordinates to prevent local authorities from learning of the episodes. Suppose it was shown that, in fact, thousands of pediatricians had victimized tens of thousands of children nationwide. Suppose it was shown that the CEO, current President, and each regional executive continued to follow the policy, even while denying its existence.
<
p>Would you still insist that the local pediatric hospital stay open, arguing that “most of the pediatricians were fine doctors?”
<
p>Surely a pediatric hospital has an obligation to protect the children it serves from dangerous quacks. Surely a chain of such hospitals that has demonstrated a long history of just the opposite should not be allowed to continue to accept children as patients. In my view, a local Catholic parish should be treated the same way so long as it continues its institutional, business, legal, and financial involvement with the demonstrably corrupt Vatican hierarchy.
…which appears to be what you want every Catholic to do or otherwise be an object of your prejudice. RICO may well apply. I don’t remember the details of the statute, but I’d still prefer to stay away from loaded terms. Even calling the Church “an institution that has engaged in criminal activity” sounds a lot better than “criminal enterprise”. The former speaks to actions which can be charged and proven; the latter is a term of judgement that makes the entire organization look as if a bunch of people got together to create an institution whose purpose was molesting children and covering it up. I have in fact made up my mind regarding the Church’s actions based on the facts and my opinions thereof are by no means favorable to the church. I don’t believe I have ever challenged your facts. When you have posted a story about this I never said it didn’t happen like that.
<
p>As for your hospital example, I would prosecute all those who broke the laws, but if it were 5 out of every 100 doing this I would absolutely continue to give the other 95 the benefit of the doubt that they are doing their jobs correctly. I’d even allow the hospital to stay open provided new people untainted by the scandal were put in charge. However, if you want to bring that analogy back to the church I would caution that telling the Church who can be their Bishops is constitutionally dicey. The only way that can happen is if we prosecute and imprison those responsible, which is completely doable.
You write “I define jumping ship as leaving the church which appears to be what you want every Catholic to do or otherwise be an object of your prejudice.”
<
p>Did Martin Luther “jump ship” when he nailed his missive to the door?
<
p>You seem to have a different understanding of what “prejudice” means than me. In my view, criticism of a person who makes a conscious choice to support an organization in full knowledge of documented crimes perpetrated by that organization is not “prejudice.”
<
p>Is it “prejudice” to pursue and prosecute those who provide material support to terrorist organizations? Is it “prejudice” to pursue and prosecute those who provide material support to hate organizations like the KKK? Like it or not, this institution continues to enable, shelter, and protect sex abusers, while it continues to obstruct secular authorities from investigating and prosecuting those crimes.
<
p>Regarding the phrase “criminal enterprise”, I didn’t just make it up; it has a reasonably specific and well-defined meaning. Here is how the RICO statutes cited above define “enterprise”:
<
p>Here is the related “Kingpin Statute”, TITLE 21 > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part D > § 848 “Continuing criminal enterprise”. From this link:
<
p>I believe my use of the phrase is consistent with these definitions; you’ve offered no substantive argument other than your own feelings.
<
p>We agree that if “people untainted by the scandal” were put in charge of the hospital, it could reopen. Of course the 95% of the legitimate doctors would be allowed to continue practicing — but not under the authority and control of the tainted administration.
<
p>It seems to me that the Martin Luther approach — an “American Reformation”, where American Catholics sever their institutional, business, and legal ties to the Vatican (they can, of course, worship however they choose) — is the only (or at least the best) workable outcome.
I believe at least at first his intent was not to jump ship. He would have been perfectly happy to reform from within. Henry VIII may be a better example, since he pushed through legislation basically telling Rome to get lost, ironically just a few years after defending the Church against Martin Luther. I’m not saying people shouldn’t speak out, take action, etc. I’ve said before if I were Catholic there’s a good chance I’d join “Voice of the Faithful” who also sought reform from within. I’m only saying that it is inappropriate to judge people based on the church they attend, or assume that just because they continue to attend means that they agree with how the Church is behaving.
<
p>Specifically this quote: “You seem to have a different understanding of what prejudice means than me. In my view, criticism of a person who makes a conscious choice to support an organization in full knowledge of documented crimes perpetrated by that organization is not prejudice.” I would argue that this usually works, but we must be careful with religion. Though it is possible to consciously change, one’s religion is for many a matter of fundamental identity that we as a society protect from discrimination and rightfully so. Legally it is more like one’s race and its exercise is protected. Laws cannot dictate attitude, but my attitude is one that I would no more criticize one’s religious beliefs and participation than I would their racial or ethnic heritage, including participation in cultural activities. I certainly would not want to be judged on the basis of the church I attend, just as it was wrong to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his church and pastor in Chicago.
<
p>Your other examples of prejudice don’t quite work. We do have to be careful about who’s really consciously abetting terrorism because there have been cases where bad assumptions have been made about a Muslim’s leanings because it turns out his mosque is a little too close to questionable organizations or activity. I don’t like the KKK example because hate and racism is entirely what they are about. It’s not like it’s this nice benevolent community organization which oh by the way just happens to not admit black people. There’s no excuse to support the KKK if you are not racist, but there are plenty of reasons to be involved with Church without condoning this behavior.
<
p>I guess the criminal enterprise issue is similar to our exchange a while back on the definition of terrorism. In both cases there is the technical legal term and on the other hand there is the image such term conjures up. You may well be correct on the legal side, but I stand by what I said that it makes it sound worse.
I think we understand each other, at least. We seem to have different views of what we demand of participants in a religious organization — perhaps we should just agree that such diversity of views is part of the texture of this issue.
<
p>It seems to me that, whatever the connotations of these terms might be, an organization that provides material support for terrorists is rightly described as “terrorist”, and I feel that secular authorities are on relatively firm ground in enforcing severe restrictions on the ability of such organizations to, for example, solicit funds. In my view, the evidence compellingly suggests that the institutional Roman Catholic enterprise should be treated similarly because of its explicit international conspiracy to protect, enable, and shield clergy sex abusers.
I just saw on the NECN news scroll today that the Vatican has now for the first time specifically called on priests and bishops to report incidents of abuse to police. Let’s see if and how they back it up.
Well, I doubt many of you have seen this if you’re not regular readers of PZ Myers, so I’m going to offer it because it details, at length, the depravity of this organization’s leadership.
<
p>
(emphasis mine)
<
p>The degree of specificity and detail in this article is not for the faint of heart. Consider yourself forewarned.