May seem like an attack? LOL I'm the last person to defend any church, but they are not the only religion worthy of your scorn. As a lapsed Catholic with 12 years of parochial school I have a little bit of experience in the faith and the education that came along with it. Never remember getting abused or being taught that the Crusades, the Inquisition, torture, or sexual abuse was a good thing. I was taught tolerance, acceptance, and forgiveness. I had catechism classes that taught us about all of the major world religions, without judgment. Maybe you had a different experience. Father David never fondled me but he did stare at my sister's boobs.
Lol I admit I could be completely wrong. There’s a nonzero chance God actually does exist. There’s no answer to “why” we’re here if we’re all being completely honest with ourselves. I guess I’ve just never really understood why people feel compelled to adhere to something with no proof. Probably a topic for another thread
I get that--but ultimately "religion" is not necessarily about a belief that "God exists." That's an important component of some forms of religion, but not all. Paul Tillich called religion the "realm of man's ultimate concern," which I think is a nice formulation for discussions like this. Those different religious worldviews can be more or less rational, more or less justifiable, and sometimes, more or less nonsensical or even dangerous. But to generalize about all religions is a mistake I think. Better to narrow the focus to a particular flavor of religion--in this thread, for example, Catholicism. But then you need to further break the subject down into which flavor of Catholicism. anyway. I appreciate your gracious response. @SamFisher
I'm not Catholic nor Christian. But I don't see the problem reconciling the history of the church with its teachings to be honest. It is built into the theology of the religion. They tell you at the outset that all people are sinners. The religion revolves around how to atone for all the evil we do. They tell you the church is the bride of Christ and that he loves the church, but the church is w****. Before they did any of the things you reproach the church for now, they warned you that something like that was going to happen. I can understand not liking their history, but it's not hypocritical and it's not inconsistent with their teachings. If anything, it should emphasize the idea that the path of atonement lies with Christ because no one, not even the pope and the saints, is blameless.
also if you look at the marriage between Greek and especially Aristotelian ethical thought and Hebraic/Christian moral teachings (via Augustine and Aquinas), you'll see the importance of religion to virtually all modern ethical thought and political theory. It's hard to argue historically for human rights and basic human dignity (possessed by ALL humans by virtue of their humanity) without some sort of historical concept of the imago Dei, i.e., the idea that humans are 'created in the image of God.' To be sure, much of Christian religious history has been twists and turns--wrong turns as the OP catalogs--but thinking in historical terms, it's very important not to throw out the ethical teachings baby with the institutional church bathwater so to speak. Otherwise the moral underpinnings for justice, and for modern social justice movements such as BLM, make much less sense than they do.
I wouldn't say childish, but a hangover from our superstitious past. Some believe it is "hardwired" into our psyche because we have held such beliefs for so long.
I don’t really put any more blame for the Crusades on the Catholics than I do Muslims. The inquisition was terrible. It started over 500 years ago. At that same time Protestants were murdering Catholics and Jews as well. In the Middle East Muslims were rooting out and murdering non believers. Sexual abuse of minors is terrible. It also has been a problem in all the other major religions. It isn’t unique to Catholicism. The rest of your list doesn’t really equate to the Catholic hierarchy in any particular way. The Catholic Church is nearly 2,000 years old and has a very strong recorded history, has been an enormous church and has been front and center as result. The Catholic Church isn’t any worse than any other religious church. So singling out the Catholic Church is very bizarre to me.
My significant other went to a Catholic grade school in San Antonio and was taught by nuns, who if nothing else, beat beautiful handwriting into her that she's never lost. She's what is commonly called a "non-practicing Catholic." Her uncle, who died a few years back, was a priest who spent well over 30 years in working class areas of Tokyo as a missionary. On the rare times he visited Texas, he always stayed a couple of days with us, saying Mass for my S.O., who ordinarily went to Mass once a year at Christmas with her sister in Houston. I'm not religious, which he knew, but her uncle never failed to make an attempt at converting me, giving me books and other literature to read. He was unfailingly polite about it. Loved to play golf, one of the reasons he liked Texas, I suspect. The weather. His last years were spent at Villanova in retirement. We visited him there a few times. He was a kind, gentle man. The sort of priest one might see in a film from the 1930's, one not played by Spencer Tracy. ;-) I have a difficult time imagining others in the Church hierarchy allowing the madness that went on, enabling it, based on my experience with him. Yet it went on and it goes on, a rot within the church that should be removed, root and branch. He would have agreed with that sentiment.
I'm not necessarily meaning to single out the Catholic Church, per se. They're just the easiest for me to single out. Especially with my local situation, as I've highlighted. I think all religions have their own demons. I was raised Baptist. I've chosen not to be religious. I live my daily life with a moral compass akin to what any church would teach, but I choose to distance myself from religion purposely. I believe in living by the golden rule. I believe in loving each other like family. I think we need to listen to each other more. Sympathize more. Hug more, and possibly most importantly, laugh more. If anyone is offended by me, I apologize. Not meaning to single anyone out here, though it probably seems it.
Its called the God Gap. When humans can't explain something, they come up with something that seems like the most 'logical' response to fill the gap. Some people are so committed to their version of the Truth that they have no issues crucifying someone who goes against it. Just keep in mind your decedents will one day mock and laugh at the things you believe.
All just part of the wickedness/flaw of man is what my mom said after I asked her about the sexual abuse. She may feel differently if it was one of the priests at a church or if it occurred to me (as I was an alter boy). I only go with my parents for the hits..... Christmas and Easter. I sit, stand, and kneel but my mind is elsewhere.
Doesn't the God Gap state that when we can't explain something, it's an act of God. Pretty sure that's what the term is used for.
Because the church is a monolithic structure, all priests are part of the whole and easy to source blame on the "church." Other Protestant denominations allow any "dimestore deacon" to grab a bible and preach making it difficult to track numbers of "a sexual abuse" problem in the ranks. My guess is the number of abusers are likely the same as in the general population. For what is worth... Abuse in the Catholic Church There's more fiction than facts in Catholic clergy sexual abuse discussions. There are a lot more myths than facts bantered around about clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Here are six important points that you should know if you are interested in this topic. 1. Catholic clergy aren't more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general. According to the best available data (which is pretty good, coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, as well as several other studies), 4 percent of Catholic priests in the U.S. sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published at this time which states this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4 percent figure appears lower than school teachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men. Research states that over 20 percent of American women and about 15 percent of American men were sexually violated by an adult when they were children. Sexual victimization is tragically fairly common in the general population, but luckily these numbers have been dropping in recent years. 2. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on celibacy. Not having sex doesn't make children the object of one's desire. First, if Catholic clergy aren't more likely to be sex offenders than other clergy or men in general, then celibacy can't be blamed by itself. Most sex offenders are not celibate clergy. Most are married or partnered. Furthermore, many men who don't have sex for a variety of reasons (e.g., no suitable partners or marital or relationship distress) don't turn to children for sexual gratification. They turn to other consenting adults. Think about it: If you don't have sex, who becomes the object of your desire? Children or other adults? 3. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on homosexuality. Although the vast majority of victims are boys (80 percent, according to the 2004 John Jay study and other studies), and the Catholic Church has a large number of priests who are homosexual in orientation (22-45 percent, according to a variety of studies and reports), homosexuality doesn't make men sex offenders. No evidence exists that suggest sexual orientation, in and of itself, makes someone at risk to commit sex crimes against children or others. Sexual orientation is not a risk factor for crime. 4. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on an all-male clergy. If Catholic clergy aren't more likely to be sex offenders than clergy from other traditions, then an all-male clergy can't be blamed. Having women clergy doesn't stop sex offenders from offending. 5. Almost all of clergy sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church that we hear about in the news are from decades ago (usually the 1960s and 70s). Although these stories are horrific to hear, they are almost never about incidents that have occurred since the late 1980s. Incidents of abuse in the past 20 to 25 years are quite rare compared to incidents during the 60s and 70s. This is also true for other groups, such as school teachers. Incidents since the 2002 crisis in the U.S. unfolded are especially rare. Most of the more recent cases are from international priests, who were both born and formed (i.e., trained and ordained) overseas, and who generally didn't go through the screening and training process that local men go through. Some argue that more recent victims (i.e., since the mid 1980s) just haven't come forward yet. Perhaps that is true, but thus far, no published data supports this theory. 6. Most clergy sex offenders aren't pedophiles. Research tells us that about 80 percent of clergy sex offenders abuse post-pubescent teens, not pre-pubescent children. So the phrase "pedophile priest" is a misnomer. You might say that it doesn't matter. Both categories involve victimizing minors. True, but the risk factor profiles, as well as the evaluation and treatment prognoses, are very different between the two groups. Besides, while people may be worried about young children being victimized, they may neglect the more likely victim: the teen. Perhaps the real issue here is that many are outraged with church leaders (especially bishops), whom they believe have been defensive and arrogant. People demand responsibility and accountability, and they don't see it happening. Clearly, some church leaders treated victims and their families very poorly. For many rank-and-file Catholics, who often put priests on pedestals, it is shocking to hear that some of these men have sexually violated anyone, let alone children. The Catholic Church's unpopular positions on sexual ethics (e.g., masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, divorce) make sex crimes committed by priests even more scandalous. The secrecy and otherworldliness of the Catholic Church also make the story of child sexual abuse committed by priests of great interest to the media and to the general population. It all sounds like a Dan Brown novel! Finally, many of the 25 percent of Americans who are Catholic had ambivalent feelings about their church to begin with, even before the clergy abuse crisis unfolded. Many who were raised in the church during previous generations have deeply emotional stories of priests and nuns who had impossibly high standards for thought and behavior, which makes stories of clergy sexually violating children so hypocritical. Perhaps the gospel verse "He who is without sin may cast the first stone" from John 8:7 sums up this sentiment. *** more at link For more information, you might review my 2004 book, Sin against the Innocents: Sexual Abuse by Priests and the Role of the Catholic Church, and my 1999 book, Bless Me Father For I Have Sinned: Perspectives on Sexual Abuse Committed by Roman Catholic Priests. Additionally, you might take a look at the John Jay Study referred to earlier, which can be accessed from the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops web site: http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/. A quick 2018 update.... Since this article was written and published in 2010 several additional resources have become available including the John Jay College of Criminal Justice's Causes and Context Study published in 2011 as well as another book about the problem, Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Decade of Crisis, 2002-2012, published by my team in 2012. Interested readers may wish to review them. References Plante, T. G., & McChesney, K. (Eds.). (2011). Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Decade of Crisis, 2002-2012. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO. ISBN: 978-0-313-39387-7.
The guy that wrote this article is a priest.... 1. 4 percent of priests were sexual offenders. Most had multiple victims. These are supposed to be the pillars of society and hold all of these children's darkest secrets. Many of the teachers this article references are most likely in a consentual relationship with 16+ year old students, not 8-10 year old boys. 2. Is just a stupid, baseless claim with not data. Not supported by anything. 3.obviously not. This has nothing to do with anything. Though I am surprised that many priests are homosexuals. Not that it matters. It's a power thing. As I've alluded to. These guys know all of these kids secrets and can hold it over their head. The abuse is a psychological issue. Many things in life are. See: cops abusing perps, prisoners sexually assaulting other prisoners, etc. 4. According to something I quickly Googled, females were responsible for 34.7% of sexual assaults on males (I'm sure most were hot for teacher incidents) and only 4% on females. I disagree with his statement. 5. They are more rare, but definitely happen. My mother in law taught at a Catholic school where the priest would pull the same kid out of her class at the same time every day. She couldn't do anything about it. She tried to stop it. That priest is now defrocked. 6. This guy lumps all sexual assault categories into one (citing less priests than teachers, etc.) And then at the end of the article wants to separate rape victims by age? Nope. A minor is a minor. Rape is rape. This article sucks.
The church needs to let men marry and this will allow for more normal personalities who don't want to abuse children to join. Largely unrelated but I felt like posting this because it's a badass song and it's about a deviant church member.
What does having the ability to get married have to do with child abuse? There are plenty of married people who abuse and molest children.
Sorry, that crime stats don't fit your pre-conceptions. I hear Jimmy Swaggert is looking for converts again.
