MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
In the interest of clarification, my point about membership being responsible for the actions of the churches they support is not confined to the RCC, or even christianity in general. I feel this about about pretty much any organization, the MSU fanbase and MSU's coverup of their sexual abuse comes to mind. I'm mostly fine with reformers within those organizations as well, but just carrying on with your own personal involvement with an immoral organization, even if it is difficult to extricate yourself, just means you're hoping someone else fixes the problem for you. If you don't want a manner of responsibility for supporting these groups, then either work to fix them or leave, or you're giving support by continuing to show because attendance IS support, unless it is protest.
I felt this was important to post, I don't have a particular ax to grind with any specific religion and I feel this way about non-religious groups as well. I get the underlying differences between religious and non-religious groups in terms of difficulty of separation, I just don't think they rise to the level of absolving the laity of personal responsibility for their continued involvement. If the underlying crimes were anything not on the order of pedophilia I could see the argument carrying enough weight, but when its massive systemic corruption across decades continued involvement is directly supporting known criminals. I don't know how you can spin it as anything else, regardless of the personal hardships to the individual member. No one is holding a gun to your head to stay.
And if you're Catholic and want out, the Episcopalians and the Reformed Catholic Church exist, and IMO both have the same strength of claim to being the Church(Tm) as the current RCC. Their church leaderships have the same ordination chain going back to Peter AFAIK, and if that continuity is important to you then you should know you have options other than the RCC that don't involve stopping being Catholic in the important to some people theistic sense.
I think if you wanna talk to your priest about it that's definitely a way you can go
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also there’s Methodism, which is like West Coast Anglicanism
They have priests wearing vestments, the Nicine Creed, and the Eucharist. Priests can marry and even be female and/or transgender (depending on sect).
No confessional. Lots of potlucks. There’s probably a frisbee golf youth group and a garage band composed of suburban dads that play blues covers.
+1
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Okay, I am having trouble parsing this logically:
The faith teaches that the structure of the church and even the pope are still in the end, human with all the faults that come with it. That means change can occur to those aspects without it being an affront to God or any such thing. I believe change will happen.
So if the structure of the church, even the Pope, are susceptible to human faults, such as being/supporting child rapists... why is it not okay to leave the church? If being a child rapist is a human flaw doesn't that kind of indicate that the church is being led by people who are flawed, and that the doctrine they preach could also be flawed?
Like, not trying to hit a gotcha on this. Genuinely confused as I assumed the Pope was supposed to be infallible, otherwise none of this makes sense. If the Pope can fuck up, why can't the laity and/or the rest of the Church just say, "Yo, you fucked up"?
The faith teaches that the structure of the church and even the pope are still in the end, human with all the faults that come with it. That means change can occur to those aspects without it being an affront to God or any such thing. I believe change will happen.
So if the structure of the church, even the Pope, are susceptible to human faults, such as being/supporting child rapists... why is it not okay to leave the church? If being a child rapist is a human flaw doesn't that kind of indicate that the church is being led by people who are flawed, and that the doctrine they preach could also be flawed?
Like, not trying to hit a gotcha on this. Genuinely confused as I assumed the Pope was supposed to be infallible, otherwise none of this makes sense. If the Pope can fuck up, why can't the laity and/or the rest of the Church just say, "Yo, you fucked up"?
Well, it's not just the pope that's in on it, it's the entire Church. It's an entire organization covering for priests raping children. There is no rest of the Church in this case.
As I recall, from a practical point of view, the infallability of the Pope is limited to specific ex cathedra decrees. So not everything is infallible.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As I recall, from a practical point of view, the infallability of the Pope is limited to specific ex cathedra decrees. So not everything is infallible.
Great! So doesn't that mean that the laity is empowered to denounce and excise elements of the Church that have been exposed as abusing their station by say... I dunno... raping kids? So why haven't they done that?
3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
American Catholics tend to ignore Rome and the American Bishops all the time. Not familiar enough with Catholics around the world, but I imagine it's pretty similar.
Does feel like y'all need a second Reformation though to thoroughly reform the hierarchy. Because it's (once again) hilariously corrupt.
Yeah. Don’t throw out the church, throw out the corrupt system of criminals. A Christian church should be a charitable organization, first and foremost, not a tax shelter for a human trafficking ring.
Technically, it's the offenders that are trafficked, not the victims.
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
As I recall, from a practical point of view, the infallability of the Pope is limited to specific ex cathedra decrees. So not everything is infallible.
Great! So doesn't that mean that the laity is empowered to denounce and excise elements of the Church that have been exposed as abusing their station by say... I dunno... raping kids? So why haven't they done that?
You've exhausted my procedural knowledge. I'm assuming communication to priests or bishops would come next.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The core tenet here is not "you are punished for leaving", it's "this is the truth, the alternatives are wrong".
That’s a distinction without a difference IMO.
Leaving is an alternative, even if it’s just wanting to practice the exact same faith outside of the church, because your can’t in good conciseness square the interpretations of God’s morality with child rape.
Sorry, I meant the churches interpretations of God’s morality, cause Lord forbid someone interprets the Bible for themselves.
It really isn't.
You're reading "wrong" as in "morally wrong." The correct reading is as in "factually wrong."
The most basic, sine-qua-non doctrine of the church I left is this: "If you believe the Bible as we teach it, you will go to heaven after you die. If you deviate even a little, you will go to hell." I believed that for the first 25 or so years of my life in the same way that I believed in math, gravity, and the inevitability of Monday mornings.
Before you criticize people for staying with their church, you need to understand/admit that for many religious people, you are asking them to slit their own throats. It doesn't matter whether you think that's bullshit, because that is what they believe.
edit: I'm not saying you can't criticize people for staying! Just... while you do that, recognize the existential bind they're in, maybe.
Secular law enforcement really is what should happen, though.
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
The core tenet here is not "you are punished for leaving", it's "this is the truth, the alternatives are wrong".
That’s a distinction without a difference IMO.
Leaving is an alternative, even if it’s just wanting to practice the exact same faith outside of the church, because your can’t in good conciseness square the interpretations of God’s morality with child rape.
Sorry, I meant the churches interpretations of God’s morality, cause Lord forbid someone interprets the Bible for themselves.
It really isn't.
You're reading "wrong" as in "morally wrong." The correct reading is as in "factually wrong."
The most basic, sine-qua-non doctrine of the church I left is this: "If you believe the Bible as we teach it, you will go to heaven after you die. If you deviate even a little, you will go to hell." I believed that for the first 25 or so years of my life in the same way that I believed in math, gravity, and the inevitability of Monday mornings.
Before you criticize people for staying with their church, you need to understand/admit that for many religious people, you are asking them to slit their own throats. It doesn't matter whether you think that's bullshit, because that is what they believe.
I started off just criticizing the church with understanding for those who feel they are stuck there, but then I was confronted with the argument that the church is the people.
I refuse to be told I cannot condemn the church because it’s the same as condemning the people.
But sake of argument, what would the proper way be to condemn a religion?
Cause if they truly believe they have no agency and any deviation is literal Hell, then these people are effectively stuck in a child sex cult. If they have agency in this, then staying is a choice.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The core tenet here is not "you are punished for leaving", it's "this is the truth, the alternatives are wrong".
That’s a distinction without a difference IMO.
Leaving is an alternative, even if it’s just wanting to practice the exact same faith outside of the church, because your can’t in good conciseness square the interpretations of God’s morality with child rape.
Sorry, I meant the churches interpretations of God’s morality, cause Lord forbid someone interprets the Bible for themselves.
It really isn't.
You're reading "wrong" as in "morally wrong." The correct reading is as in "factually wrong."
The most basic, sine-qua-non doctrine of the church I left is this: "If you believe the Bible as we teach it, you will go to heaven after you die. If you deviate even a little, you will go to hell." I believed that for the first 25 or so years of my life in the same way that I believed in math, gravity, and the inevitability of Monday mornings.
Before you criticize people for staying with their church, you need to understand/admit that for many religious people, you are asking them to slit their own throats. It doesn't matter whether you think that's bullshit, because that is what they believe.
edit: I'm not saying you can't criticize people for staying! Just... while you do that, recognize the existential bind they're in, maybe.
Secular law enforcement really is what should happen, though.
Yes, we know.
But the message I read here is you left.
Do you feel your mortal soul is in danger? No? Good! Neither should anyone else! And any institution that says otherwise should be considered, by a free and open society, bereft of any moral authority, charitable works or no.
If anyone out there actually, truly, believes that my soul is at greater risk of being tortured for all eternity than that of a child rapist, I cannot, nor should I be compelled to, treat you as a morally upstanding person. If that bothers you, then I urge you to reconsider your personal beliefs.
3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
You say this like pedophiles and abusers are this natural class of human that can come from nowhere. Monsters are made not born and the clergy is a factory for abusers not just a haven for them.
You also say this like joining the clergy is as easy as being a coach or a preacher; it isn't. Holy Orders is a minimum 8 year path that starts with earning a university degree in religious philosophy. If a sexual predator is on the hunt for victims and trust there are far quicker and easier paths to it. Especially considering the high drop out rate of seminarians.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization, rather than taking the stance that if you REALLY have a problem with this, you will sever all ties with an important aspect of your spiritual and social life.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization.
As I understand it, parishioners have virtually no power to affect change other than not showing up and not tithing.
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
I'd think that the internal culture has to be pretty toxic as well, with non-abusers forced to work alongside known abusers and being pressured to keep quiet about any abuse they see. I can't see many good people wanting to move up the ranks enough to make a difference when their promotions are probably going to be heavily contingent on their willingness to protect their subordinates, either.
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
AFAIK studies suggest that the rate of abuse among the catholic priesthood is the same as among the general population.
The core tenet here is not "you are punished for leaving", it's "this is the truth, the alternatives are wrong".
That’s a distinction without a difference IMO.
Leaving is an alternative, even if it’s just wanting to practice the exact same faith outside of the church, because your can’t in good conciseness square the interpretations of God’s morality with child rape.
Sorry, I meant the churches interpretations of God’s morality, cause Lord forbid someone interprets the Bible for themselves.
It really isn't.
You're reading "wrong" as in "morally wrong." The correct reading is as in "factually wrong."
The most basic, sine-qua-non doctrine of the church I left is this: "If you believe the Bible as we teach it, you will go to heaven after you die. If you deviate even a little, you will go to hell." I believed that for the first 25 or so years of my life in the same way that I believed in math, gravity, and the inevitability of Monday mornings.
Before you criticize people for staying with their church, you need to understand/admit that for many religious people, you are asking them to slit their own throats. It doesn't matter whether you think that's bullshit, because that is what they believe.
edit: I'm not saying you can't criticize people for staying! Just... while you do that, recognize the existential bind they're in, maybe.
Secular law enforcement really is what should happen, though.
Yes, we know.
But the message I read here is you left.
Do you feel your mortal soul is in danger? No? Good! Neither should anyone else! And any institution that says otherwise should be considered, by a free and open society, bereft of any moral authority, charitable works or no.
If anyone out there actually, truly, believes that my soul is at greater risk of being tortured for all eternity than that of a child rapist, I cannot, nor should I be compelled to, treat you as a morally upstanding person. If that bothers you, then I urge you to reconsider your personal beliefs.
Except this argument is "just don't actually believe in your religion". Which is an argument that suggests an inability to understand the situation from the perspective of the religious people you are ostensibly talking to or about.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization, rather than taking the stance that if you REALLY have a problem with this, you will sever all ties with an important aspect of your spiritual and social life.
The extreme end of cutting off all contact with the church was put forth as a defense for those that still attend church despite decades of abuse. Those of us criticizing the church just rolled with it because there’s no point in arguing over semantics of defiance in the church if all defiance is supposedly equal.
It’s difficult to come up with a way for people still in the church to enact change when the argument that any deviation will condemn someone to Hell, no matter if it’s a major or minor deviation from church teachings.
So what form of defiance against the church is acceptable when all defiance leads to Hell?
I really am uncomfortable infantilizing people in church as if they have no agency. They’re adults, not children. They have a choice in where they take their kids. It’s the actual children that have no choice
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization, rather than taking the stance that if you REALLY have a problem with this, you will sever all ties with an important aspect of your spiritual and social life.
The extreme end of cutting off all contact with the church was put forth as a defense for those that still attend church despite decades of abuse. Those of us criticizing the church just rolled with it because there’s no point in arguing over semantics of defiance in the church if all defiance is supposedly equal.
It’s difficult to come up with a way for people still in the church to enact change when the argument that any deviation will condemn someone to Hell, no matter if it’s a major or minor deviation from church teachings.
So what form of defiance against the church is acceptable when all defiance leads to Hell?
I really am uncomfortable infantilizing people in church as if they have no agency. They’re adults, not children. They have a choice in where they take their kids. It’s the actual children that have no choice
Is there a specific tenet in Roman Catholicism that rejection of Roman Catholicism in particular guarantees that you go to hell? I think, actually, that Roman Catholic dogma is quite lenient in that regard.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It’s always a good sign when a tenant of a belief system says that leaving said belief system will ensure everlasting torment no matter the justification.
Much better to risk children being raped by the church here on Earth than taking them out of the church and risking their eternal souls to Satan and the Lake of Fire.
But to each their own.
Yes, that's why all religions are a problem, but it remains that they are still popular, people still believe in them, and pretending that they are only evil social clubs is not helpful when it comes to dealing with the abuse.
What helpful things has the Catholic Church done to offset the systematic abuse, kidnapping, and death of children over hundreds of years and the subsequent coverup that allowed predators to keep preying?
Are their bake sales really good? Notre Dame football?
A friend of my boyfriends was raised Catholic and eventually left the Catholic Church the institution over these kinds of issue and other instances of hypocrisy and corruption, but still maintains his faith.
He told my boyfriend that leaving the Church was a true benefit for his faith because he never realized how little faith he actually had, and how little faith he needed while he was comfortably operating within all the rules and regulations of the Church.
He never had to actually "have faith" because he was ticking off all the boxes on his Get Into Heaven List of any good and obedient Catholic and doing everything he was supposed to do.
He said once he left the institution he actually had to have real faith in God for the first time.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization.
As I understand it, parishioners have virtually no power to affect change other than not showing up and not tithing.
I haven't really looked into it, but are there any tithe-refusal movements among Catholics about this? That seems like the bare minimum Catholics could do about it. There's no like, tithe requirement to get into Heaven, is there?
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization.
As I understand it, parishioners have virtually no power to affect change other than not showing up and not tithing.
I haven't really looked into it, but are there any tithe-refusal movements among Catholics about this? That seems like the bare minimum Catholics could do about it. There's no like, tithe requirement to get into Heaven, is there?
A simple google search brings up statistics showing that adherence to tithing is laughable. Catholics give less money to the church than other Christian denominations in most studies.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization.
As I understand it, parishioners have virtually no power to affect change other than not showing up and not tithing.
I haven't really looked into it, but are there any tithe-refusal movements among Catholics about this? That seems like the bare minimum Catholics could do about it. There's no like, tithe requirement to get into Heaven, is there?
A simple google search brings up statistics showing that adherence to tithing is laughable. Catholics give less money to the church than other Christian denominations in most studies.
How is the church funded, then? From googling, it seems to be a mix of tithes/donations, rent collection, free labor from volunteers, and profits from schools/charities/hospitals. Cutting out the tithe/donations and free labor from volunteers seems like an effective way of making a point that you don't support child rapists.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization, rather than taking the stance that if you REALLY have a problem with this, you will sever all ties with an important aspect of your spiritual and social life.
The extreme end of cutting off all contact with the church was put forth as a defense for those that still attend church despite decades of abuse. Those of us criticizing the church just rolled with it because there’s no point in arguing over semantics of defiance in the church if all defiance is supposedly equal.
It’s difficult to come up with a way for people still in the church to enact change when the argument that any deviation will condemn someone to Hell, no matter if it’s a major or minor deviation from church teachings.
So what form of defiance against the church is acceptable when all defiance leads to Hell?
I really am uncomfortable infantilizing people in church as if they have no agency. They’re adults, not children. They have a choice in where they take their kids. It’s the actual children that have no choice
Is there a specific tenet in Roman Catholicism that rejection of Roman Catholicism in particular guarantees that you go to hell? I think, actually, that Roman Catholic dogma is quite lenient in that regard.
The de facto treatment of people who leave, at least in the developed world, is lenient largely because the church has no real ability to do anything about it and learned a very bloody lesson about this impotence a few centuries ago. The actual dogma is pretty harsh (you can see the catechism or (if you want to know what a crazy person thinks), the Catholic Encyclopedia. The actual dogma is that leaving the Church is one of the worst possible sins (naturally) and that secular government acting at the behest of the church is completely justified in leveling the death penalty for it, holding it as a "mark of infamy" against your children and grandchildren, etc.
The core tenet here is not "you are punished for leaving", it's "this is the truth, the alternatives are wrong".
That’s a distinction without a difference IMO.
Leaving is an alternative, even if it’s just wanting to practice the exact same faith outside of the church, because your can’t in good conciseness square the interpretations of God’s morality with child rape.
Sorry, I meant the churches interpretations of God’s morality, cause Lord forbid someone interprets the Bible for themselves.
It really isn't.
You're reading "wrong" as in "morally wrong." The correct reading is as in "factually wrong."
The most basic, sine-qua-non doctrine of the church I left is this: "If you believe the Bible as we teach it, you will go to heaven after you die. If you deviate even a little, you will go to hell." I believed that for the first 25 or so years of my life in the same way that I believed in math, gravity, and the inevitability of Monday mornings.
Before you criticize people for staying with their church, you need to understand/admit that for many religious people, you are asking them to slit their own throats. It doesn't matter whether you think that's bullshit, because that is what they believe.
edit: I'm not saying you can't criticize people for staying! Just... while you do that, recognize the existential bind they're in, maybe.
Secular law enforcement really is what should happen, though.
Yes, we know.
But the message I read here is you left.
Do you feel your mortal soul is in danger? No? Good! Neither should anyone else! And any institution that says otherwise should be considered, by a free and open society, bereft of any moral authority, charitable works or no.
If anyone out there actually, truly, believes that my soul is at greater risk of being tortured for all eternity than that of a child rapist, I cannot, nor should I be compelled to, treat you as a morally upstanding person. If that bothers you, then I urge you to reconsider your personal beliefs.
Except this argument is "just don't actually believe in your religion". Which is an argument that suggests an inability to understand the situation from the perspective of the religious people you are ostensibly talking to or about.
Why? You do realize that I am one among many who did exactly that. I'm not special. If I can reject the religion that I was brought up in, why can't anyone else? Is there something different about me that I don't know about?
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization.
As I understand it, parishioners have virtually no power to affect change other than not showing up and not tithing.
I haven't really looked into it, but are there any tithe-refusal movements among Catholics about this? That seems like the bare minimum Catholics could do about it. There's no like, tithe requirement to get into Heaven, is there?
A simple google search brings up statistics showing that adherence to tithing is laughable. Catholics give less money to the church than other Christian denominations in most studies.
How is the church funded, then? From googling, it seems to be a mix of tithes/donations, rent collection, free labor from volunteers, and profits from schools/charities/hospitals. Cutting out the tithe/donations and free labor from volunteers seems like an effective way of making a point that you don't support child rapists.
Your free labor and tithe goes almost entirely to supporting your local church. (Priest, other church staff if present, and upkeep of the physical building.) The local-level stuff is almost entirely not the problem at hand.
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
AFAIK studies suggest that the rate of abuse among the catholic priesthood is the same as among the general population.
It's basically all about access and the coverup.
I want to see that data. If nothing else the priesthood being exclusively male should make them more prone to sex abuse.
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
AFAIK studies suggest that the rate of abuse among the catholic priesthood is the same as among the general population.
It's basically all about access and the coverup.
I want to see that data. If nothing else the priesthood being exclusively male should make them more prone to sex abuse.
Imagine two people. One person abuses a child, gets caught, and goes to jail. The second person abuses a child, gets caught, gets moved to a different location, and continues. A single abuser can have a lot of victims. By saying that the rate of abuse is similar, there may be the same number of abusers, but they stick around instead of being swiftly caught and removed from a position of power.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization.
As I understand it, parishioners have virtually no power to affect change other than not showing up and not tithing.
I haven't really looked into it, but are there any tithe-refusal movements among Catholics about this? That seems like the bare minimum Catholics could do about it. There's no like, tithe requirement to get into Heaven, is there?
A simple google search brings up statistics showing that adherence to tithing is laughable. Catholics give less money to the church than other Christian denominations in most studies.
How is the church funded, then? From googling, it seems to be a mix of tithes/donations, rent collection, free labor from volunteers, and profits from schools/charities/hospitals. Cutting out the tithe/donations and free labor from volunteers seems like an effective way of making a point that you don't support child rapists.
Your free labor and tithe goes almost entirely to supporting your local church. (Priest, other church staff if present, and upkeep of the physical building.) The local-level stuff is almost entirely not the problem at hand.
The local church kicks it upwards to the main organization.
The core tenet here is not "you are punished for leaving", it's "this is the truth, the alternatives are wrong".
That’s a distinction without a difference IMO.
Leaving is an alternative, even if it’s just wanting to practice the exact same faith outside of the church, because your can’t in good conciseness square the interpretations of God’s morality with child rape.
Sorry, I meant the churches interpretations of God’s morality, cause Lord forbid someone interprets the Bible for themselves.
It really isn't.
You're reading "wrong" as in "morally wrong." The correct reading is as in "factually wrong."
The most basic, sine-qua-non doctrine of the church I left is this: "If you believe the Bible as we teach it, you will go to heaven after you die. If you deviate even a little, you will go to hell." I believed that for the first 25 or so years of my life in the same way that I believed in math, gravity, and the inevitability of Monday mornings.
Before you criticize people for staying with their church, you need to understand/admit that for many religious people, you are asking them to slit their own throats. It doesn't matter whether you think that's bullshit, because that is what they believe.
edit: I'm not saying you can't criticize people for staying! Just... while you do that, recognize the existential bind they're in, maybe.
Secular law enforcement really is what should happen, though.
Yes, we know.
But the message I read here is you left.
Do you feel your mortal soul is in danger? No? Good! Neither should anyone else! And any institution that says otherwise should be considered, by a free and open society, bereft of any moral authority, charitable works or no.
If anyone out there actually, truly, believes that my soul is at greater risk of being tortured for all eternity than that of a child rapist, I cannot, nor should I be compelled to, treat you as a morally upstanding person. If that bothers you, then I urge you to reconsider your personal beliefs.
Except this argument is "just don't actually believe in your religion". Which is an argument that suggests an inability to understand the situation from the perspective of the religious people you are ostensibly talking to or about.
Why? You do realize that I am one among many who did exactly that. I'm not special. If I can reject the religion that I was brought up in, why can't anyone else? Is there something different about me that I don't know about?
Because maybe other people don't want to reject religion?
And also, and even more so, we should have a basic understanding of what religion means to a lot of people as a profession of their faith and so rejecting that religion does not work how you describe it for others? That, in fact, if you believe in the teachings of your religion often rejecting it literally means your mortal soul is in danger?
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
AFAIK studies suggest that the rate of abuse among the catholic priesthood is the same as among the general population.
It's basically all about access and the coverup.
I want to see that data. If nothing else the priesthood being exclusively male should make them more prone to sex abuse.
In general there is no reason to suspect that "the priesthood being exclusively male should make them more prone to sex abuse" and that suggests a misunderstanding of how this stuff works from any to the research I've read.
I think that a more productive stance to take here would be engaging in a dialogue with folks here to try and figure out ways that Catholics can express their displeasure over the handling of these cases and push for change within the organization, rather than taking the stance that if you REALLY have a problem with this, you will sever all ties with an important aspect of your spiritual and social life.
The extreme end of cutting off all contact with the church was put forth as a defense for those that still attend church despite decades of abuse. Those of us criticizing the church just rolled with it because there’s no point in arguing over semantics of defiance in the church if all defiance is supposedly equal.
It’s difficult to come up with a way for people still in the church to enact change when the argument that any deviation will condemn someone to Hell, no matter if it’s a major or minor deviation from church teachings.
So what form of defiance against the church is acceptable when all defiance leads to Hell?
I really am uncomfortable infantilizing people in church as if they have no agency. They’re adults, not children. They have a choice in where they take their kids. It’s the actual children that have no choice
Is there a specific tenet in Roman Catholicism that rejection of Roman Catholicism in particular guarantees that you go to hell? I think, actually, that Roman Catholic dogma is quite lenient in that regard.
The de facto treatment of people who leave, at least in the developed world, is lenient largely because the church has no real ability to do anything about it and learned a very bloody lesson about this impotence a few centuries ago. The actual dogma is pretty harsh (you can see the catechism or (if you want to know what a crazy person thinks), the Catholic Encyclopedia. The actual dogma is that leaving the Church is one of the worst possible sins (naturally) and that secular government acting at the behest of the church is completely justified in leveling the death penalty for it, holding it as a "mark of infamy" against your children and grandchildren, etc.
I read the catechism link and the punishment there was pretty vague other than describing whether things were sins or not. The rest is history.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
So the Catholic church that my wife went to and that her mother goes to recently removed a retired official (don't think they were a priest?) for having 'unspecified' materials on their computer.
Mother-in-law and wife to a lesser extent wife just do not understand why this is a problem with not just that person but the church - and The Church - as a whole. It's not just the abuser, it's the cover-up and refusal to address it in a timely manner that's the problem. Oh, and they're having our child go through communion there. Not sure if I'm going to allow that to continue.
Sorry, just needed to vent here when it suddenly becomes more than an interesting debate topic and turns real.
+2
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Not wanting to leave your faith is fine. Wanting it to change is fine.
What is not fine is people pretending that their individual actions do nothing to contribute to churches and other organizations cover-ups of pedophilia. You can argue that your personal faith is more important to you than holding child molesters accountable, but you get to own that. If your organization flatly refuses to change and you continue to go, you simply cannot claim to not support their actions. You attend and participate in that community, which is exactly what those church leaders want, the support of laity. Because without support of laity these institutions simply don't exist anymore than as a relative handful of priests and reverends.
And those of outside those faiths are under no obligation to play nice about it, especially those of us who have already done what some posters are claiming is nearly impossible to do. Life went on, and got significantly better for me having left forever.
+11
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
The only way the Catholic Church is unique in these sort of abuses is that it's way the fuck more organized than (checks notes) literally any other religion save maybe Mormonism.
If there was a longstanding bureaucracy for Southern Baptists, the same thing would be happening there. As it stands youth pastors that rape teenage girls still mostly just get shuffled off without charges.
As an outsider (a Protestant) I feel that the #1 thing the Catholic Church needs is wives for priests. With their lack of ability to form healthy family bonds, I think they get unhealthily bound up in the Church and unwilling to look at it critically.
The #2 thing is woman priests, but that's probably a few centuries off... married priests could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.
Given what married preachers get up to, I rather doubt this would have any effect.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
AFAIK studies suggest that the rate of abuse among the catholic priesthood is the same as among the general population.
It's basically all about access and the coverup.
If I remember right the rate of molesters is actually higher for 2 reasons:
When found they are not removed, leading to a higher incidence
Sometimes people that feel that they have sinful urges, will seek the priesthood and its celibacy as an answer but then dont have the support to maintain the celibacy and dont receive punishment for breaking it...
Posts
I felt this was important to post, I don't have a particular ax to grind with any specific religion and I feel this way about non-religious groups as well. I get the underlying differences between religious and non-religious groups in terms of difficulty of separation, I just don't think they rise to the level of absolving the laity of personal responsibility for their continued involvement. If the underlying crimes were anything not on the order of pedophilia I could see the argument carrying enough weight, but when its massive systemic corruption across decades continued involvement is directly supporting known criminals. I don't know how you can spin it as anything else, regardless of the personal hardships to the individual member. No one is holding a gun to your head to stay.
And if you're Catholic and want out, the Episcopalians and the Reformed Catholic Church exist, and IMO both have the same strength of claim to being the Church(Tm) as the current RCC. Their church leaderships have the same ordination chain going back to Peter AFAIK, and if that continuity is important to you then you should know you have options other than the RCC that don't involve stopping being Catholic in the important to some people theistic sense.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They have priests wearing vestments, the Nicine Creed, and the Eucharist. Priests can marry and even be female and/or transgender (depending on sect).
No confessional. Lots of potlucks. There’s probably a frisbee golf youth group and a garage band composed of suburban dads that play blues covers.
So if the structure of the church, even the Pope, are susceptible to human faults, such as being/supporting child rapists... why is it not okay to leave the church? If being a child rapist is a human flaw doesn't that kind of indicate that the church is being led by people who are flawed, and that the doctrine they preach could also be flawed?
Like, not trying to hit a gotcha on this. Genuinely confused as I assumed the Pope was supposed to be infallible, otherwise none of this makes sense. If the Pope can fuck up, why can't the laity and/or the rest of the Church just say, "Yo, you fucked up"?
Well, it's not just the pope that's in on it, it's the entire Church. It's an entire organization covering for priests raping children. There is no rest of the Church in this case.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Great! So doesn't that mean that the laity is empowered to denounce and excise elements of the Church that have been exposed as abusing their station by say... I dunno... raping kids? So why haven't they done that?
Technically, it's the offenders that are trafficked, not the victims.
As someone who grew up Catholic (now recovering), I think it's reasonable to suggest if the Catholic Church cast a wider net for the clergy to the other 51% of global population and if their job description no longer included total celibacy it would make them less prone to attracting and/or developing child sex abusers. I'm not a doctor or a social worker but I'm inclined to suspect the unnatural demand the Church places on its clergymen to be sexless sex educators and foster a sex-negative environment might a contributing factor to this problem.
You've exhausted my procedural knowledge. I'm assuming communication to priests or bishops would come next.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It really isn't.
You're reading "wrong" as in "morally wrong." The correct reading is as in "factually wrong."
The most basic, sine-qua-non doctrine of the church I left is this: "If you believe the Bible as we teach it, you will go to heaven after you die. If you deviate even a little, you will go to hell." I believed that for the first 25 or so years of my life in the same way that I believed in math, gravity, and the inevitability of Monday mornings.
Before you criticize people for staying with their church, you need to understand/admit that for many religious people, you are asking them to slit their own throats. It doesn't matter whether you think that's bullshit, because that is what they believe.
edit: I'm not saying you can't criticize people for staying! Just... while you do that, recognize the existential bind they're in, maybe.
Secular law enforcement really is what should happen, though.
Lots of child abusers are married. The problem is more access: pedophiles and abusers are attracted to positions of trust where they can find victims, and where they are protected when reported (because they are deemed trustworthy until overwhelming evidence. And them some.).
For example, coaches and preachers.
Married priests would have just as much access to victims and trust, so this would do little to help.
I started off just criticizing the church with understanding for those who feel they are stuck there, but then I was confronted with the argument that the church is the people.
I refuse to be told I cannot condemn the church because it’s the same as condemning the people.
But sake of argument, what would the proper way be to condemn a religion?
Cause if they truly believe they have no agency and any deviation is literal Hell, then these people are effectively stuck in a child sex cult. If they have agency in this, then staying is a choice.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Yes, we know.
But the message I read here is you left.
Do you feel your mortal soul is in danger? No? Good! Neither should anyone else! And any institution that says otherwise should be considered, by a free and open society, bereft of any moral authority, charitable works or no.
If anyone out there actually, truly, believes that my soul is at greater risk of being tortured for all eternity than that of a child rapist, I cannot, nor should I be compelled to, treat you as a morally upstanding person. If that bothers you, then I urge you to reconsider your personal beliefs.
You say this like pedophiles and abusers are this natural class of human that can come from nowhere. Monsters are made not born and the clergy is a factory for abusers not just a haven for them.
You also say this like joining the clergy is as easy as being a coach or a preacher; it isn't. Holy Orders is a minimum 8 year path that starts with earning a university degree in religious philosophy. If a sexual predator is on the hunt for victims and trust there are far quicker and easier paths to it. Especially considering the high drop out rate of seminarians.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
As I understand it, parishioners have virtually no power to affect change other than not showing up and not tithing.
I'd think that the internal culture has to be pretty toxic as well, with non-abusers forced to work alongside known abusers and being pressured to keep quiet about any abuse they see. I can't see many good people wanting to move up the ranks enough to make a difference when their promotions are probably going to be heavily contingent on their willingness to protect their subordinates, either.
AFAIK studies suggest that the rate of abuse among the catholic priesthood is the same as among the general population.
It's basically all about access and the coverup.
Except this argument is "just don't actually believe in your religion". Which is an argument that suggests an inability to understand the situation from the perspective of the religious people you are ostensibly talking to or about.
The extreme end of cutting off all contact with the church was put forth as a defense for those that still attend church despite decades of abuse. Those of us criticizing the church just rolled with it because there’s no point in arguing over semantics of defiance in the church if all defiance is supposedly equal.
It’s difficult to come up with a way for people still in the church to enact change when the argument that any deviation will condemn someone to Hell, no matter if it’s a major or minor deviation from church teachings.
So what form of defiance against the church is acceptable when all defiance leads to Hell?
I really am uncomfortable infantilizing people in church as if they have no agency. They’re adults, not children. They have a choice in where they take their kids. It’s the actual children that have no choice
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Is there a specific tenet in Roman Catholicism that rejection of Roman Catholicism in particular guarantees that you go to hell? I think, actually, that Roman Catholic dogma is quite lenient in that regard.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Young age indoctrination mostly.
He told my boyfriend that leaving the Church was a true benefit for his faith because he never realized how little faith he actually had, and how little faith he needed while he was comfortably operating within all the rules and regulations of the Church.
He never had to actually "have faith" because he was ticking off all the boxes on his Get Into Heaven List of any good and obedient Catholic and doing everything he was supposed to do.
He said once he left the institution he actually had to have real faith in God for the first time.
I haven't really looked into it, but are there any tithe-refusal movements among Catholics about this? That seems like the bare minimum Catholics could do about it. There's no like, tithe requirement to get into Heaven, is there?
A simple google search brings up statistics showing that adherence to tithing is laughable. Catholics give less money to the church than other Christian denominations in most studies.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
How is the church funded, then? From googling, it seems to be a mix of tithes/donations, rent collection, free labor from volunteers, and profits from schools/charities/hospitals. Cutting out the tithe/donations and free labor from volunteers seems like an effective way of making a point that you don't support child rapists.
The de facto treatment of people who leave, at least in the developed world, is lenient largely because the church has no real ability to do anything about it and learned a very bloody lesson about this impotence a few centuries ago. The actual dogma is pretty harsh (you can see the catechism or (if you want to know what a crazy person thinks), the Catholic Encyclopedia. The actual dogma is that leaving the Church is one of the worst possible sins (naturally) and that secular government acting at the behest of the church is completely justified in leveling the death penalty for it, holding it as a "mark of infamy" against your children and grandchildren, etc.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Why? You do realize that I am one among many who did exactly that. I'm not special. If I can reject the religion that I was brought up in, why can't anyone else? Is there something different about me that I don't know about?
Your free labor and tithe goes almost entirely to supporting your local church. (Priest, other church staff if present, and upkeep of the physical building.) The local-level stuff is almost entirely not the problem at hand.
I want to see that data. If nothing else the priesthood being exclusively male should make them more prone to sex abuse.
Imagine two people. One person abuses a child, gets caught, and goes to jail. The second person abuses a child, gets caught, gets moved to a different location, and continues. A single abuser can have a lot of victims. By saying that the rate of abuse is similar, there may be the same number of abusers, but they stick around instead of being swiftly caught and removed from a position of power.
The local church kicks it upwards to the main organization.
Because maybe other people don't want to reject religion?
And also, and even more so, we should have a basic understanding of what religion means to a lot of people as a profession of their faith and so rejecting that religion does not work how you describe it for others? That, in fact, if you believe in the teachings of your religion often rejecting it literally means your mortal soul is in danger?
Here's the first thing I found:
https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625
In general there is no reason to suspect that "the priesthood being exclusively male should make them more prone to sex abuse" and that suggests a misunderstanding of how this stuff works from any to the research I've read.
I read the catechism link and the punishment there was pretty vague other than describing whether things were sins or not. The rest is history.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Mother-in-law and wife to a lesser extent wife just do not understand why this is a problem with not just that person but the church - and The Church - as a whole. It's not just the abuser, it's the cover-up and refusal to address it in a timely manner that's the problem. Oh, and they're having our child go through communion there. Not sure if I'm going to allow that to continue.
Sorry, just needed to vent here when it suddenly becomes more than an interesting debate topic and turns real.
What is not fine is people pretending that their individual actions do nothing to contribute to churches and other organizations cover-ups of pedophilia. You can argue that your personal faith is more important to you than holding child molesters accountable, but you get to own that. If your organization flatly refuses to change and you continue to go, you simply cannot claim to not support their actions. You attend and participate in that community, which is exactly what those church leaders want, the support of laity. Because without support of laity these institutions simply don't exist anymore than as a relative handful of priests and reverends.
And those of outside those faiths are under no obligation to play nice about it, especially those of us who have already done what some posters are claiming is nearly impossible to do. Life went on, and got significantly better for me having left forever.
If there was a longstanding bureaucracy for Southern Baptists, the same thing would be happening there. As it stands youth pastors that rape teenage girls still mostly just get shuffled off without charges.
If I remember right the rate of molesters is actually higher for 2 reasons:
When found they are not removed, leading to a higher incidence
Sometimes people that feel that they have sinful urges, will seek the priesthood and its celibacy as an answer but then dont have the support to maintain the celibacy and dont receive punishment for breaking it...
MWO: Adamski