We never, and the others all did too, and shut up
The church isn’t giving an inch – on the contrary, it’s fighting like a starving tom cat.
The Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out for criticism of sexual abuse of children by priests and will not tolerate campaigns to discredit it, the powerful head of Italy’s bishops said on Monday.
Oh right – it’s all so terribly unfair. The church sets itself up as a moral arbiter for the entire world, and then it’s surprised and wounded when we get cross with it for its settled habit of hiding priestly child-rape from the police. Yes indeed, that is like so unfair. And it ‘won’t tolerate’ – what does it mean it won’t tolerate? What’s it going to do? What’s it threatening everyone with? Who do they think they are?
Oh it’s a stupid question. They think they’re the holy version of the Mafia, and of course they’re right, except for the holy part.
Speaking two days after Pope Benedict apologised to victims of sexual abuse in Ireland, Bagnasco said the Church was “not afraid of the truth, however painful and detestable” but would not accept any “generalised campaigns to discredit it.”
Well, chum, the church is just going to have to accept it, isn’t it. It has no way of preventing it, and it has no moral standing with which to deflect it. So go ahead and tell each other what you won’t tolerate or accept, but nobody else (apart from Damian Thompson) will pay much attention.
Fergus Finlay hasn’t much sympathy.
[R]eading the letter as a layman, I have to say it was terribly disappointing, and chillingly dishonest in parts…[T]here was no sense, where victims of abuse are concerned, that the church will in future, at the direction of the Pope himself, abandon the adversarial tactics that have characterised all their dealings with people who have been abused in the past…And right from the beginning of the letter, there is a sense that the Pope has chosen to distance himself and the Vatican from what happened in the church in Ireland. There is an air throughout the letter that he is somehow only just discovering what happened in Ireland and that he is “deeply disturbed by the information that has come to light”. The tone of this early part of the letter is deeply offensive because everyone knows the concealment of abuse, and the refusal to cooperate in any open way with investigation, has been a Vatican tactic from the very beginning. The notion that the Pope has had to chastise the Irish bishops for their conduct – as if their conduct wasn’t deeply embedded in church policy – is thoroughly dishonest.
There now, Cardinal Bagnasco, you see how it’s going? People don’t believe you. It isn’t working. The bluffing, the threatening, the pretending to be surprised, the distancing, the claims that everybody does it – none of it is working. You’re deep in the weeds. You will still have your church, but it will be smaller; fewer young men will sign up to be priests; even fewer people will let the Vatican tell them what to do; deference will be a lot scarcer.
If you guys had any sense you would stop bluffing and threatening and distancing, and at least try to claw back a few shreds of integrity from the wreckage. But clearly you’re determined to make things even worse for yourselves. Whatever.
By the way, the German scholar Karl-Heinz Deschner, who authored the “sexual history of the Church” and is currently (and has been, for quite some years now) writing the ten-volume “criminal history of the Church” was interviewed, and the dpa (the German associated press) had promised to publish the interview.
Strangely, when Deschner compared historical cloisters to bordellos, talked about Pope Sixtus sleeping with his sister and offspring and how religious sexual mores would only repress normal urges, the dpa ended up not printing the interview.
http://hpd.de/node/9114
Did it!
Too bad the linked item is in German. I have a little German, but…nicht genug.
Yeah, sorry, but as with the story about bishop Muller I linked to in the other thread, I mostly put the link in so people would see it really was a news source, and on the off-chance that someone might understand German.
There’s a great documentary about Deschner, by the way, where a clergyman describes this typical historian (i.e. stuffy) to have “hate-filled eyes”, and later claims the enlightenment ideals were only possible because of the Church bringing them along. The mind boggles.
There’s an oddly appropriate passage in The Pilgrim’s Progress where the hero has to pass by the cave of a giant, named Pope, who used to seize and devour pilgrims but has become so old and feeble that now he can only sit and leer at them in the hopes of frightening them.
Reading this post, I was reminded of that. The church is putting on its best imitation of its old arrogant swagger, snapping at people that we are the moral ones, that you have no right to stand in judgment of us, thundering about where were you when we laid the foundations of the world, etc., etc.
And you know what I’m seeing more and more? It’s not working. People are starting to cotton on to how hypocritical and hollow it all is.
Quite. It’s almost funny, their saying they won’t tolerate it. Whacha gonna do, excommunicate us? Oooooooh, I’m scared!
If we are not in that church, the thing we have to fear is that clerical hitman in the Dan Brown novel.
Hate to get time-splatted into the fourteenth century though…
I have an impression that we are getting in a cycle of confirmation bias regarding the eeevil child raping catholic church hierarchy. Sure the situation and number of cases are not deniable, but how does the level of malfeasance compare with other professions or organisations?
An earlier thread mentioned the attitudes of the 1970’s being different and it was certainly true that child sex offenses were extremely seriously regarded then, though perhaps the media did not whip it up over paedophiles then. My mother in about 1975 was posted to another town as a headmistress after the previous headmaster was busted playing with small boys (at a level that did not include rape). Today there is a post on one of the same Australian media bloggers that played up the ‘nasty atheists’ story, Andrew Bolt:
“… do we demonise school teachers as “kiddie fiddlers” the way we do Catholic priests?
Documents obtained by The Courier-Mail print … Right to Information laws reveal almost all 26 [Queensland] teachers who had their registrations suspended or cancelled in the past year were cited for sexual misconduct.
One state pre-school teacher, who was previously investigated for molesting young children, got his students to strip naked and paint each other while he took photos.
Another had a threesome with students in the back seat of his car after taking them to the Gay Pride march.
A long-term teacher did naked cartwheels in front of 12 year-old students on a school camp and entered their tents dressed in women’s underwear.
He was eventually convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl at a Brisbane private school…
QCT director John Ryan…acknowledged some sexual predators were flying under the radar, particularly before mandatory reporting of cases was introduced.”
Bolt said: “I wonder why the media is keen to pander to the savage stereotype of a dirty priest, yet are so (rightly) prepared to accept that almost 26 Queensland teachers in a single year are just exceptions in an otherwise honorable profession. “
In this country is said to be an appalling amount of child rape that is not spoken about because it impinges on the Aboriginal situation and the (History Wars) claims that Aboriginal children are and were taken for their protection, not out of genocidal motives.
It is a really important difference that in teaching, they deal with it. Maybe not in the papers, but transfers to make the story go away and blood oaths of concealment are NOT part of the process.
And despite the reluctance and delays to action of Australian child protection officers that do cost lives, those officers faced with evidence of child sex abuse usually DO protect aboriginal kids by removal if necessary. The process is flawed, but it is accountable and action is taken to protect the innocent victims.
Thats the difference between the Church history and the other places where multiple child sex offenses are dealt with.
Cardinal Pell, Catholic Primate of Australia, asserts that Christopher Hitchens has his facts wrong and that Ratzinger never attempted to cover up sexual abuse by clerics.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/popes-critics-must-get-their-facts-straight/story-e6frg6zo-1225844481258
Either Pell or Hitchens will have to back off on this, so its wait and see. But my money would not be on His Holiness, so it would not be on Pell either.
My money is on both sides of that question defining the answer as vindication of their viewpoint.
ChrisPer: No doubt there is many an eloquent Jesuit around who can prove that black is white, and in this case may be given the task. But it is a question of what the Pope actually said. If the source quotations are weasel-worded enough, it may technically get the Pope off the hook. But it would be a Pyrrhic victory.
The whole thing has now turned into a counter-inquisition, in which the Church is on trial and facing the prospect of going up in flames. The Catholic Church is a frachise chain in which a few bad market outlet operators can send the whole business broke.
(Ironically, it could never happen in Protestantism. A bad storefront preacher would just lose his congregation to his rivals, who would be only too happy to take them off his hands as he went down the tube.)
My reading is that the more the Catholic hierarchy try to explain it all away, the worse it gets for them, as I think this thread shows. It all comes from the hierarchy putting its own interests before those of the laity, and the most innocent and vulnerable of the laity at that.
Michael Sean Winters is interesting on this, at http://www.slate.com/id/2248521/pagenum/all/#p2
But not half so interesting as the comments on his piece, which is a tepid defence of the Church.
ChrisPer, obviously those events are horrible. But did the school board also, with full knowledge of these abuses cover it up and move the teachers to different school districts? Did they threaten to kick teachers out who reported it?
There’s the awfulness of the child rape. But much of the current outrage with the Catholic Church is with the awfulness of covering it up.
Paedophiles are not tolerated because the relationship between the parties so involved is inevitably lopsided in power terms between the adult and the minor/s involved. While the adult is inevitably consenting, the minor need not be to anything near the same extent.
Protecting a church organisation by covering for paedophiles in its ranks seems to come as a bit of a reflex to archbishops, cardinals and such. Witness the case of former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Dr Peter Hollingworth, who was appointed Governor-General of Australia by the Prime Minister of the day, then finished up resigning from that post (most reluctantly, and in disgrace) over just such a scandal. That was in 2003.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s864968.htm
The Catholic hierarchy is collectively thrashing around at the moment like fish in a trap, but it does not appear to be winning them much support. My prediction: a few sacrificial lambs will shortly be led to the altar.
Ophelia, you might want to have a read of the following:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0325/1224267012490.html
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? / How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? / You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” — Matthew 7:3-5