HappyHax0r wrote:

aspire1670 wrote:

apparentlydeluded wrote:Y'know, this scandal has been compared to Watergate in its scandal value. Curiously, despite Watergate, we still have largely the same political structure (albeit with checks and balances, I'd imagine). Similarly, despite Enron, we still have accountants on the loose. In the UK, there has been an ongoing MP expenses scandal, but no call to dissolve our government entirely. And furthermore, most crucially, the Catholic priesthood is not the only profession in which child abuse takes place; teachers are in largely the same position. The Catholic Church seems to be the only institution in which the scandals involved call people to question whether it should continue to exist.

Might it not be something to do with the fact that the Catholic Church claims to be the fount of a christian morality which holds that fucking children is morally reprehensible? Miss the point, much.

Could also be something to do with the fact that when a Teacher commits these crimes they're answerable to society vis a vis the law...

Criticism makes no distinction between the past and what is happening now

Bishop Peter J Cullinane responds to claims the Catholic Church has lost its moral authority over sex-abuse scandals.

NEW ZEALAND'S Catholic bishops make no excuse whatever for sexual crimes or for errors of judgment in dealing with them. Wrong is wrong.
Like other bishops around the world, the New Zealand bishops feel nothing but shame that such crimes have been committed here or anywhere, and sadness at the slowness of the Church, everywhere, to appreciate the irremediable nature of some not all kinds of sexual offending.
The claim that the Church has lost its moral authority in your editorial (March 29 [above]) refers especially to recent allegations of mismanagement by the Pope. Unfortunately, some media are still disseminating inaccuracies and misleading reports.
Independent international research reveals that the department headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was not involved with the vast majority of sex abuse cases and even of the small percentage that wound up in Rome, before 2001.
In 2001, responsibility for dealing with cases of abuse was shifted to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's department. He took a lead role in beefing up the handling of cases being reported to Rome.
Before 2001 preoccupation with due process in order to prevent unjust dismissals by bishops added slowness to the Vatican response, and a culture of silence meant that even where justice was done, it was not seen to be done. 2001 was a watershed year.
At this time Cardinal Ratzinger personally began to read all the files available to him. Like all of us, he was having to learn, and become wiser with hindsight. What we do know is that his involvement led to the toughening of Rome's actions against offenders.
As head of the Catholic Church, the Pope must take responsibility for dealing with cases of abuse in the Church. The true calibre of the present Pope is evident in his letter to the Catholics of Ireland. The style of the letter might be unfamiliar to those who have distanced themselves from the Catholic Church.
However, it is remarkable for its substance and frankness, its deep human concern for all who have been impacted, and its firmness in regard to what he expects of bishops. [As we say a lot here in NZ, "Yeah, right."] It is for churches in the countries of origin to establish processes for referral of abuse cases to civil authorities. No doubt the letter did not say everything that everybody wanted it to say.
In our own country, the protocols put in place by the bishops and religious orders include the reporting of cases to authorities and fully cooperating with investigations. We also have a former police commissioner, John Jamieson, who is not a Catholic, in charge of our national office dealing with these matters.
Monday's editorial makes no distinction between what happened in the past and what is happening now.
Some reports have suggested that there is a link between abuse and celibacy. Specialists in Britain who have been working professionally with paedophiles over many years have pointed out that the vast majority of offenders are neither celibates nor Catholics. [which makes the excesses of priests that much more peculiar] The matter is too serious for over-simplified explanations.
We make no excuse for any offending that has occurred within the Catholic Church or for any inadequacies in our dealing with offences. But we would like to think that when individuals in any family let the other family members down, as has happened in the family of the Catholic Church, it is not the whole family that has offended and therefore lost,its moral authority or integrity.

apparentlydeluded wrote:Y'know, this scandal has been compared to Watergate in its scandal value. Curiously, despite Watergate, we still have largely the same political structure (albeit with checks and balances, I'd imagine). Similarly, despite Enron, we still have accountants on the loose. In the UK, there has been an ongoing MP expenses scandal, but no call to dissolve our government entirely. And furthermore, most crucially, the Catholic priesthood is not the only profession in which child abuse takes place; teachers are in largely the same position. The Catholic Church seems to be the only institution in which the scandals involved call people to question whether it should continue to exist.

Shuggy wrote:The Dominion Post, Wellington, New Zealand, March 31, 2010

Criticism makes no distinction between the past and what is happening now

Bishop Peter J Cullinane responds to claims the Catholic Church has lost its moral authority over sex-abuse scandals.

NEW ZEALAND'S Catholic bishops make no excuse whatever for sexual crimes or for errors of judgment in dealing with them. Wrong is wrong.
Like other bishops around the world, the New Zealand bishops feel nothing but shame that such crimes have been committed here or anywhere, and sadness at the slowness of the Church, everywhere, to appreciate the irremediable nature of some not all kinds of sexual offending.
The claim that the Church has lost its moral authority in your editorial (March 29 [above]) refers especially to recent allegations of mismanagement by the Pope. Unfortunately, some media are still disseminating inaccuracies and misleading reports.
Independent international research reveals that the department headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was not involved with the vast majority of sex abuse cases and even of the small percentage that wound up in Rome, before 2001.
In 2001, responsibility for dealing with cases of abuse was shifted to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's department. He took a lead role in beefing up the handling of cases being reported to Rome.
Before 2001 preoccupation with due process in order to prevent unjust dismissals by bishops added slowness to the Vatican response, and a culture of silence meant that even where justice was done, it was not seen to be done. 2001 was a watershed year.
At this time Cardinal Ratzinger personally began to read all the files available to him. Like all of us, he was having to learn, and become wiser with hindsight. What we do know is that his involvement led to the toughening of Rome's actions against offenders.
As head of the Catholic Church, the Pope must take responsibility for dealing with cases of abuse in the Church. The true calibre of the present Pope is evident in his letter to the Catholics of Ireland. The style of the letter might be unfamiliar to those who have distanced themselves from the Catholic Church.
However, it is remarkable for its substance and frankness, its deep human concern for all who have been impacted, and its firmness in regard to what he expects of bishops. [As we say a lot here in NZ, "Yeah, right."] It is for churches in the countries of origin to establish processes for referral of abuse cases to civil authorities. No doubt the letter did not say everything that everybody wanted it to say.
In our own country, the protocols put in place by the bishops and religious orders include the reporting of cases to authorities and fully cooperating with investigations. We also have a former police commissioner, John Jamieson, who is not a Catholic, in charge of our national office dealing with these matters.
Monday's editorial makes no distinction between what happened in the past and what is happening now.
Some reports have suggested that there is a link between abuse and celibacy. Specialists in Britain who have been working professionally with paedophiles over many years have pointed out that the vast majority of offenders are neither celibates nor Catholics. [which makes the excesses of priests that much more peculiar] The matter is too serious for over-simplified explanations.
We make no excuse for any offending that has occurred within the Catholic Church or for any inadequacies in our dealing with offences. But we would like to think that when individuals in any family let the other family members down, as has happened in the family of the Catholic Church, it is not the whole family that has offended and therefore lost,its moral authority or integrity.

DaveDodo007 wrote:The headlines keep coming, everyday more and more information about the sexual abuses and violent abuses as well as the disgusting cover up of said activities. Will the faithful start leaving the church in such numbers that the church can't survive? Will the position of the church become untenable? Or will the large numbers of catholics in the third world be able to sustain the church allowing it to wait the scandal out? It's amazing what believers will forgive, this is a institution that has survived for over 1,700 years despite what has been thrown at it.

I don't know the answer but I'm interested in your thoughts.

Some reports have suggested that there is a link between abuse and celibacy. Specialists in Britain who have been working professionally with paedophiles over many years have pointed out that the vast majority of offenders are neither celibates nor Catholics.

byofrcs wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:The headlines keep coming, everyday more and more information about the sexual abuses and violent abuses as well as the disgusting cover up of said activities. Will the faithful start leaving the church in such numbers that the church can't survive? Will the position of the church become untenable? Or will the large numbers of catholics in the third world be able to sustain the church allowing it to wait the scandal out? It's amazing what believers will forgive, this is a institution that has survived for over 1,700 years despite what has been thrown at it.

I don't know the answer but I'm interested in your thoughts.

Yes and no.

There is the Vatican/Holy See and then there are the regional catholic churches who report back to the Vatican.

The catholic church has significant real estate holdings globally but it is asset rich and cash poor. It costs around EURO 320 Million a year to run the Vatican state and this is met by donations (ironically the US is one of the bigger donors !) and the odd sale of stuff but that is the least of the problems.

In the countries the church has massive revenues; in Spain the taxpayers elect to donate 0.7% from their tax payments to the Catholic church but as you'll see here the fundings even in Spain are huge. In Italy they also have a similar model (0.8% - otto per mille) and it works well because the church pays so little in taxes and gets additional payments from the Italian government.

Basically you are dealing with a organisation that has a multi-billion Euro income from multiple tax-payer sources and is very well intertwined into the machinery of government.

As with the war on terrorism you follow the money. The more we can advertise the funding and the spending and show how poor value for money this organisation actually is then the faster it is gone. If the taxpayers in Italy and Spain just ticked one other box other than the Catholic Church then the church would be mortally wounded and it's not like it has any moral fibre to hold it up now has it ?.

DaveDodo007 wrote:Maybe what we have here is a slow death by a thousand cuts.

Roger Cooke wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:Maybe what we have here is a slow death by a thousand cuts.

That's exactly the way I described the Church in Germany a few weeks ago. The Church is bound to be diminished by this. But it ought to have been diminished 150 years ago, when the Pope kidnapped the child of Jewish parents (Edgardo Mortara) and refused to give him back, despite worldwide outrage. World opinion means nothing to a man who can command the favorable opinion of one-sixth of the world's people. Well, it's now more like one-eighth, due to the increase of Muslims, Hindus, and atheistic Chinese. Even so, I'd rather bear with the ills we have than fly to others we know not of. Replacing Catholicism with Islam would be a huge step backwards. The Catholic Church is stuck in the thirteenth century. Islam is stuck in the eighth.

trubble76 wrote:It is the startling hypocracy of their beliefs and actions that offend people.

Byron wrote:

trubble76 wrote:It is the startling hypocracy of their beliefs and actions that offend people.

Worse than the hypocrisy of MPs, who systematically trampled on the laws they tell the rest of us to obey? Worse than the hypocrisy of children's home staff, who condemned families for abuse? I don't think so. Yet Catholicism is subjected to selective denunciation.

Child abuse is a gift of a stick to beat the Catholic Church with. It's almost enough to make atheist anti-Catholics believe in diabolic intervention. Take Philip Pullman's display of unreasoning ferocity in the 'Guardian', Monday: "And of course part of the reason [child abuse] happens is priestly celibacy. They'll deny it and say it's nothing to do with that, but of course it is, of course it is." Mr Pullman doesn't offer a scrap of evidence for this belief, nor explain how voluntarily joining a celebrate order mutates a person into a paedophile. The irony of his attacks on faith will, doubtless, escape him.

theidiot eloquently describes how misguided these sweeping attacks are. Disagreeing with specific institutional features of the Catholic Church is different from attacking the entire denomination, as Mr Pullman does ("In one way, I hope the wretched organisation will vanish entirely"). Chief among Catholicism's problems are the authoritarian nature of the Church, the absurd depths of which are reached in the Pope's claim to be able to hand down infallible ex cathedra rulings. It can rightly be said that these should change, and realistically be hoped that they will, however slowly. A wish for the edifice to crumble, though, is something I want no part of.

nunnington wrote:
I am sure many Catholics wish for a kind of new reformation; whether this will happen is in the balance, as the Catholic Church has very conservative factions, as well as liberal ones. But the cleaning of the stables must go on.

trubble76 wrote:
Must i search out every instance of hypocracy and rank them in order to be disgusted by any one of them?

We both agree then the RCC needs to change (it's not noted for it's adaptability), however i think there are only two changes that can make the RCC decent, an overhaul so thorough the end result would be indistinguishable from the original, or it's complete anihilation. I don't believe the proverbial lick of paint will do the trick.

Byron wrote:....

If the Church is reformed, you'll still have the Pope waving to the faithful and curious in St Peter's Square, people attending mass, lighting votive candles and praying the rosary, speaking out against injustice, and visions of the Virgin Mary appearing in the skirting from time to time.

byofrcs wrote:
If this Church is reformed then I would imagine that as part of this reformation their income stream is made fair and reasonable.