just in case Francis doesn't understand the English version:

Last edited Mon Sep 3, 2018, 11:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Usuallyunder extreme duress. They responded to the Reformation with the Counter-Reformation. They responded to modernism first by digging in their heels in Vatican I, then by acquiescing in Vatican II. A lot has changed since Vatican II but they haven't kept up with the changes. So I think they will respond to the 21st Century when it becomes too painful for them not to. I Think they are already at this point, but I don't know if they know it yet.

I don't think children have centuries to wait, really. Perhaps the best solution is to keep children away from danger.

A corporation could bring in an outside CEO untainted by the crimes. A government could find somebody somewhere who was in the clear, even if it was an opposition party. Where are they supposed to come up with a high official whose hands are clean?

"Meet the new Pope. Same as the old Pope."

Actually, given the current state of things, the next Pope could be an ultra-conservative and take the church back to the past. It all depends on the internal politics that exist when a new Prelate is needed.

Of course, I'm an observer from outside of the entire thing. Watching for the white smoke has been a hobby of mine from time to time. I've seen six new Popes installed, beginning in 1958, when I was only 13 years old. I hope to have another opportunity during my lifetime.

"but there are so many good priests," I ask them, "so only some priests are bound by their vow of chastity?"

We'll never know what percentage of priests are pedophiles. So, there's no way to make comparisons with other groups. However, the crux (pun intended) of the problem is the systematic cover-up and deliberate moving of offenders to new parishes where they can re-offend.

The secrecy and organized non-solutions are what sets the church apart from other organizations. All under the umbrella of divine supervision, supposedly.

Feh!

One of the survivors said on tv the other day that the church does not hesitate to call the cops when a priest steals money from the church. All he was asking was that child sexual abuse--the theft of innocence and trust and even sometimes a life--be treated the same as petty theft, that the accused be turned in to the cops.

But I do believe that "there are so many good priests" is a piss-poor defense. For one thing, where were all the good priests while the bad ones were carrying on like a Roman (pun intended) orgy? No one noticed anything? I'm sure you read the report from PA. How could all that have gone on without *someone* noticing? None of the "good priests" had the kind of relationship with a victim or victim's family that would allow them to confide in him? Doesn't speak well of the pastoral abilities of the "good" priests. Is there any record of a "good priest" dropping a dime on a predator priest?

And, come to think of it, where is the outrage from the "good" priests? Why haven't there been calls from the pulpit for justice--real justice--for the victims? Has any "good" priest publicly condemned, by name, a "bad" priest? If he has, I haven't seen it. I hear lots of mealy-mouthed "concern" for the abused, but no one, it seems, is willing to do or even say anything that might truly help.

Pope Francis had me when he said "Who am I to judge?," which is the most Christ-like thing I've ever heard from a pope (and I majoried in Medieval Studies!), but his foot-dragging (and worse) on this topic disappoints and disgusts me.

Knowledge of priestly child sexual abuse is more widespread within the church than is admitted. So, yes, where are the "good priests." How can they know of such abuse and let it continue? That dilemma is at the center of this horrible mess.

Not reporting and allowing such criminal acts to continue is most certainly a "sin of omission." There's lots of that going on, no doubt. The Church itself, as an organization, is culpable in this, and should be prosecuted, sued into bankruptcy, and eventually either reformed or dissolved. That's my opinion.

When he didn't back the Chilean victims a few months back. But this was a rare rebuke of a Pope from the left. He's getting more criticism now from conservatives in the church. I suspect he would like to do more, but is afraid for his own position. I also suspect he has been involved in or was aware of coverups from his own time as a bishop.

It might take another generation or two before they get a leadership whose hands are clean.

That's very troubling, isn't it?

and it's way past time for the church to actually deal with it instead of hoping it will just go away. They have a systemic issue that threatens everything they claim to stand for.

Claims are worthless if they are not backed up by actions. In that regard, the RCC is a failure in protecting its children. It is a shame.

If so, expect to be disappointed.

in that DUer's post. Clearly, the poster recognizes imperfection. I wonder if you read the entire subthread.

Do you understand that?

who find they cannot adhere to the sacred vow they made during their investiture would be expected by any sane person to leave the job. This isn't expecting perfection; this is expecting living up to the job requirements.

Furthermore, it's not like a young man can just walk in and say "God wants me to be a priest." Candidates are put through what is supposed to be an arduous process to determine their fitness to serve. Part of the process is rigorous self-examination. These are men who never should have been made priests in the first place. They do not have the basic qualifications for the job.

And they do not have a distinctive sign on them to alert people.

My point is, to answer your question, I do not expect perfection. I do expect priests, like every other employed person on the planet, to fulfill a basic requirement of the job (i.e. not to molest children) or face being fired. If anyone else in the corporation notices that the employee is not only not fulfilling a basic requirement of the job, but is also breaking the law, to report the wrongdoing. I fail to see how you can object.

An excellent summary.

no more or less good or holy than your average human on average...some are saints, some are just people, some are sinners.

knowing what is expected of them. They swear holy vows to do what they are supposed to do. People who can not perform their work in the required manner get fired. People who abuse children in their care get fired and go to jail.

No one expects priests to be holy and better than the average person. Nobody I know molests children, and if I found out they did, I'd call the cops. It seems a low enough standard, that you not rape the children in your care. And that you call the police when a coworker is raping the children in your care.

doctors, lawyers, janitors...priests are no more or less special, and no more or less responsible to act ethically, particularly when it comes to like not raping people.

not the type of person. Becoming a priest means asserting that you can do the job. The job is pastoral care. Care--not pursuing justice in the court or curing illness. Pastoral care means protecting your flock from harm, leading it in the right path. That's the job description. Ordinary people of course can do this job perfectly well, and do, every day. Priests who can't do the job are not fulfilling their sworn duty to god, which is the basis of their jobs, and of the corporation they work for.

being a doctor is the same, requires morals and ethics and trust. Same for a lawyer. Yet we have folks who fail to live up to it, or even abuse their clients.

It's an old, hidebound, monolithic institution that's mostly stuck in the Middle Ages. Like many other large old institutions the instincts of its leaders are to protect the institution itself above the people it ostensibly serves (like college athletic programs with molesting coaches and doctors). Adding God to the mix means that the church leaders also believe that the church as an institution must be protected at all costs in order to serve God (which begs the question whether they believe God would just wither up and die if the church wasn't there to cheerlead, like Tinker Bell if the children didn't clap enough).

The flow all seems to be in one direction, though.

Many years ago, I interviewed a Catholic bishop for an article. Bishop Shubsda of the Monterey Diocese. He received me in his home for the interview. Everywhere I looked there was opulence on display. Exquisite oriental rugs on the floors. Furnishings and decorative items were all of amazing quality. The subject of the article was the fate of the Coastal Chumash tribes at the hands of Junipero Serra and the Spanish military. I'm afraid I didn't get much that was useful from "His Excellency." Bishop Shubsda was instrumental in promoting the canonization of Junipero Serra by Pope John Paul II.

Platitudes and polite misdirection were all he had to offer. Sadly, I could not interview a person who was 100% Chumash for that article. There were no more such people alive. It was a disappointing visit, somehow.

imperfect.

Congratulations, but Christians have known this for thousands of years.

Never mind...

aiding and abetting the sexual abuse of children for thousands of years?

Wow.

Oh well.

not random imperfections.

behaving imperfectly.

you attempted to trivialize that by your diversion.

to stop being assholes, and to stop their fellow men from being assholes when it comes to their behavior toward women and children.

Not that I'm defending the Catholic Church. It's a patriarchal institution, and scratch the surface of any patriarchal institution anywhere and during any period of time and you'll find men abusing women and children. Why is that, I wonder.

I don't expect this to be a popular post, but I felt it needed to be said.

And patriarchies tend to protect their own. No question about that. Why that is, I cannot answer. But, you're right.

I don't disagree.

I just felt I had to put its complacency and (yes) collusion in the face of male abuse of women and children into a broader context.

BTW, I always look for and appreciate your posts, even when I disagree. You're one of the reasons I keep coming back to DU.

Carry on!

I was brought up not to do such things and to defend victims of any sort of abuse. So, it's painful to me to know that men are the most common perpetrators.

exhibiting institutional type behavior, and you might understand what I said there.

Sadly.

As your misused comment about "whataboutism" demonstrates.

rationalizations.

The RCC is a huge commercial operation preying on consumers. It has practiced "infowars" long before even Machiavelli and other operators.

Their product is a totally non-testable afterlife and their dues are similar to other money-grubbing entities that will either deduct your bank account every week/month, require a donation in a ornate tithing plate, or perhaps send some thugs to your house to get the required payments.

Not to deny that other "faiths" don't practice similar skull-duggery. The sheep are easily persuaded and the cons start to believe their own con.

But there is human history, which demonstrates a tendency for members of an institution to cover up criminal behavior by fellow members of an institution.

Make us human. Make us like other animals.

to protect its members and cover up its crimes is perhaps unprecedented outside of organized criminal cartels.

That plus the stunning hypocrisy.

still in existence today, it is of course "unprecedented" but hardly unique.

The sexual abuse of women patients by male physicians--most especially psychiatrists--was pretty much always covered up and excused by the profession. It wasn't until feminists in the 1980s and '90s began to raise their voices, and more women became doctors and had access to boards of review, that this even began to change. And considering that all physicians take an oath "to do no harm" I'd say that's pretty hypocritical (but not Hippocratical) as well.

But in terms of a world-wide organization with a long history, the RCC is head and shoulders above any other institution when it comes to the extent of its crimes and the depravity of its cover up. Of that there can be no question.

Having said that, it seems to me that this sort of abuse and cover-up is evident in ANY institution led by men, where male culture is predominant. Fraternities and organized sports, political parties, male dominated professions such as medicine and higher education, law enforcement, popular entertainment, the military... anywhere you find men in unquestioned or nearly unquestioned power, that's where you'll find sexual abuse. Not that women can't be abusers, and men victims, but from what I've seen the overwhelming proportion of abusers happen to be men.

Which again to me begs the question--why? What is it about the male of the species that enables this dynamic to be repeated again and again and again? Is it simply a question of power? But then, why do so many men who aren't abusers stand aside? "The casting couch" was a well known fact of life in movies--an industry which has existed since 1910--and yet it wasn't until nearly a century later that the issue was treated as a serious problem.

The Roman Catholic Church is the most extreme, egregious example, but even if the RCC had never existed, I doubt the reality of male sexual violence against women and children would be much different. We seem in these discussions to tip toe around that unpleasant reality, which may in itself be a part of the problem.

I don't think we should give a clean bill of health to Judaism (very paternalistic) or Islam (more so.)

I'm not a student of religion but I would think that any that worship some powerful figure(s)/totem(s) are ripe for abuse. I bet there have been a few unwanted sexual activities amongst the wiccans, secular humanists, baal-ists.

It makes it seem like an even more intractable problem.

Still, as civilized human beings we should be able to evolve ourselves out of this behavior.

And I agree, any worship of a powerful figure--religious or otherwise--presents a problem. Years back I read how the Socialist Workers Party in the US--and its equivalent branch in the UK--had been covering up the rapes of female members by male leaders for years.

I wonder how long it'll take before this kind of behavior is finally ended.

I think both Patriarchy and Religion orbit Dualism.

Dualism being "the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided" Two types are notable: the spirit vs the flesh, then the mind vs body, and a subcategory of the latter is reason vs emotion. In Patriarchal structures, you have Man over Woman and Nature etc. and fused with religion God dominates all - a perfect marriage of concepts.

Since our brains gave rise to our consciousness, the mind is its creation. Dualism, by separating reason from emotion, splits the bond between consciousness and self-awareness when we are actually one with our brain and our ideas are the result of physiological processes which influence thoughts including emotions /hormones. It is all interconnected. Dualism stands in sharp contrast to this.

It's understandable how Dualism emerged. Through the heuristic process of evolution, our brains evolved to compartmentalize and distill information we receive from external stimuli in the environment. It's already known our ancestors needed explanations for phenomenon they could not understand. In flight or fight scenarios, they not only assessed threats but also processed their reactions to threat- how they felt unsettled in a space, hearing unfamiliar noises, making sense of the adrenaline rush, *sensing* things around them they couldn't readily explain so they projected these experiences externally - where they took a spiritual form, when actually their experiences were internal processes of the brain. Epistemologies were then forged out of the unknowable.

Dualistic explanations developed to explain the biological process in women. The idea of purity vs uncleanliness, where women's menses were seen as unclean. A core part of the female identity was seen as weakness justifying the domination and control of women.

But dualism also opened the door to there being "other ways of knowing" and forms the foundation of argument without evidence ( like Sagan's dragons and Russell's teapot.) Its footprints are also there in conspiracy theories and it informs a desire to look for patterns where they don't exist. It feeds confirmation bias. And because we are invested in our beliefs, we defend them like soldiers, holding on to untenable positions. Worse yet if it is buttressed by a thousand-year-old tradition where those beliefs were ingrained since childhood.

Religion exploits these cognitive flaws which are evident even among those who aren't necessarily religious however the Church is still a special case. The appeal to a higher power whose ways and methods are unknowable becomes a ruse to abuse power and this abuse can become viral, permeating every level of the institution. For those who look on and do nothing, turning a blind eye to abuse for a "Greater cause" is how they sanctify themselves of their wrongdoing and apathy - even in the face of abuse of children, women, subordinates. A toxic feedback loop fed by dualistic beliefs.

Dualism is certainly integral to the subordination of women and girls.

One aspect of this is the belief, expressed in Genesis, that the pain of childbirth is punishment for the supposed inherently sinful nature of women, as epitomized by Eve "tempting" Adam. The notion that it's the result of an evolutionary process that rewarded an upright position as an advantage (to early humanoids living in savannahs and tall grasslands) but impacted the birth canal by tilting the pelvis (the downside of this evolution) of course wouldn't have occurred to Neolithic humans in the process of standardizing their religious beliefs.

It also comes out of the "just world" theory as explained by Melvin Lerner, the notion that bad things (such as pain) happen to bad people, and that misfortune of any kind is just punishment for sin, even if the sin isn't evident to any outside observer. Lerner explains how this is a way for humans to make some sense out of the randomness of experience, the fact that none of us is in actual control of much anything that happens to us--up to and certainly including death. The dualism of "Good" vs. "Bad" is a way of explaining misfortune that offers the illusion of control where none actually exists.

"A toxic feedback loop" indeed.

Best wishes.

They've been doing that figuratively for some time.

Really.