http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8381119.stm

For centuries, the Catholic rule of "celibate" priests has attracted the worst sexual offenders, and due to the scarcity of straight men drawn to the order, the church has needed to shield these paedophiles from the law.

Until the church changes, its claim to moral guidance is the worst form of hypocrasy.

When will the Catholic church practise what it preaches.

It's time for the Catholic church to change?

Er...yes.

Ain't that the truth.

And absolutely, utterly and critically so.

Dear Shadow Minister,

A while ago I read the book by Paul Collins
called, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism
have a future?" The book did not shy away from
the difficult questions that must be asked about
the church, e.g. the lack of effective leadership,
sexual abuse scandals, a drastic shortage of priests
and declining mass attendance, particularly by
young people, and so on.

However, Paul Collins, is optimistic, and I quote:

"Catholicism has remarkable staying power, an ability
to survive unmatched by any contemporary
institution. If you've been around for just on 2000 years
you will have learned a few tricks... This doesn't
mean that the church will be perfect or that parts of
it won't wither away and die, or that it won't make
mistakes... Catholicism has survived precisely because
ultimately it is adaptable and able to change. Often
this energy for change comes late in the piece when
everything seems to be in dire straits and it may
well emerge from the most unexpected source...the
Australian church is just the right size. Not too small
so that it becomes incestuous or destroys itself in
in-fighting, not too large so that it becomes impossible
to change."

"Personally, I am optimistic that Catholicism in Australia
will survive, certainly with lesser numbers, but with more
commitment and ministerial energy. But to achieve that
Catholics will require genuine local leadership and a
willingness to confront both the difficultires and
opportunities that the church faces. My feeling is that we
are uniquely placed in Australia to be able to do precisely
that."

The catholic church needs to come in line with its members.
What the church stands for and what its members are doing is two different things.
The sooner all religion is banned and abolished from the earth the better off this world will be.

I really don't see what business it is of non Catholics to tell them what to do. I personally left the Catholic Church many years ago when I discovered how unbiblical and its appalling record towards believers.

In saying that it is up to Catholics themselves to change. The child abuse issue goes across the Labour party, the artists, the Liberal party, the scouts, churches, sporting groups, the teachers, outback communities, family, the Greens homes etc etc. Making political mileage out of child abuse is in poor taste, Just as many Catholics would be appalled by child abuse than the rest of society and even more so then parts of the arts community who in the Polanski case defend it. If people are serious about reducing child sexual abuse they could target the perverted porn industry which is adding to an epidemic of child abuse.

I’ve got some encouraging news for all you church fans.
It seems that the Catholic church, along with other denominations, is digging its heels in.

The newly drafted Manhattan Declaration draws the line on:
The sanctity of human life,
The dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife,
The rights of conscience and religious liberty.

These address, in order:
Abortion and euthanasia,
Same-sex marriage,
Human Rights Legislation.

They even implicitly advocate civil disobedience where secular law transgresses these moral imperatives.
Looks like they’re not going to just roll over and take it anymore.

Sign the declaration at:
http://manhattandeclaration.org/

Shadow Minstrel,
The facts on the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church are that it involved 4% of priests.
81% of the victims were boys.
90% of those were 11 to 17 years old.
Fortunately, the Catholic church now runs psychological screening tests to reduce the number of homosexuals entering the priesthood.

runner: "Making political mileage out of child abuse is in poor taste"

If that is so runner, the political mileage Howard got out of the NT intervention must rank as one of the biggest exercises in poor taste of all time. You didn't think all the grandstanding was really because of the kids, right? If he really cared about the kids he would have done something in the proceeding 9 years he was in office.

And then there was Warwick Marsh using vivid descriptions of child abuse to further his own anti-porn cause. Conroy tells us his mandatory filter is all about paedophilia, removing the worst of the worst and protecting kids. A pack of local residents gets a few stories lopped off the top of a block of flats to protect their children from abusers peering down on them from the top floors.

I'm guessing you think using kid abuse to promote these good causes is a good thing. But use kid abuse to criticise the church - and it is an exercise in poor taste.

Good on ya' Shadow Minister.

You cite a news item relating to a report which found that 3 dead Bishops and 1 retired Bishop behaved badly. From that you argue that the contemporary Catholic Church needs to change and hasn't already done anything to avoid this sort of tragedy. Talk about taking the flimsiest excuse.

However your view that being celibate leads to child molesting explains your comment as the Church hasn't changed there. However it is totally irrelevant to child molestation.

Foxy,

What does Paul Collins say in that book about the Church's response to the paedophilia crisis? I've got a pretty good idea but I can't find my copy for some reason.

Runner,

I am curious about what is so unbiblical about the Catholic Church. It is the Church of the Bible. Most other denominations didn't start until at least the 16th Century.

I am not a Christian but yes Catholics the first Christian church in our western world need change.
We have had many threads, hundreds of posts, about this, many different storys bought us into such discussions.
And not just in this Church, but more often it is, why no sex?
Why continue the rubbish sex is a sin?
And why expect single men only to run a Church
I do not overlook the great good most Christians do, truly, but great harm too, never forget individuals knew about this.
Knew Children in care went through hell, for people who played for the other team, evil people, some truly evil products of unwed parents have found refuge and protection in this Church.

Yes, it is time.

Change sometimes means admitting what's past was wrong and while religion and thus consequent behaviours are steeped in superstitious beliefs, I cannot see this happening anytime soon.

Most young Catholics I know in my daughter's generation don't practice celibacy, agree with a woman's right to control her own body, have sex before marriage and marry people of other denominations.

So what the Catholic hierarchy may do seems to have very little influence for the younger members.

mjpb

I am curious about what is so unbiblical about the Catholic Church. It is the Church of the Bible. Most other denominations didn't start until at least the 16th Century.

I am not prepared to enter theological discussions online here however just a few un biblical aspects of the Catholic church

- they teach you must belong to them to be saved
- they have been anti semetic throughout history
- employed dubious 'men' leading to child abuse
- killed those not sharing their dogmas
- forbid for priests to marry in contradiction to Scripture
- believe the pope's word is infallible which in times past has shown to be devlish
- hide the biblical description of salvation by faith in Christ
- christen babies and pretend it is biblical
- teach people to pray to the 'queen of heaven' who was a good woman used by God but in no way perfect.

No denomination has ever had a mortgage on truth. Roman Catholicism has killed numerous innocent people (many believers). Anyone believing they will receive salvation by belonging to a denomination has not read Scripture or any idea of Christ's teachings. As a former Catholic and as one who has had his eyes open I can see clearly that the Roman Catholic church is not the 'church of the bible. Do a simple study of the word church and you will find it is the 'called out ones'. It is the people not denomination.

Shadow Minister says “For centuries, the Catholic rule of "celibate" priests has attracted the worst sexual offenders, and due to the scarcity of straight men drawn to the order, the church has needed to shield these paedophiles from the law.”

Indeed the BBC report says “The number of complaints of abuse made by boys was more than double those submitted by girls.”

HermanYutic says “81% of the victims were boys. 90% of those were 11 to 17 years old. Fortunately, the Catholic church now runs psychological screening tests to reduce the number of homosexuals entering the priesthood.”

However he neglects to mention that the report he would have got those figures is from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. It is conducting an independent study of sexual abuse in the priesthood from 1950 up to 2002 and has reported "At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and an increased likelihood of sexual abuse.”. Other researchers went on to say "Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity." and that factors such as easier access to boys skew the results. They also reinforce the fact that the high incidence of homosexual activity in prisons is conducted not only by the gay population.

Another good example is Ted Haggard who was the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals in the US. He had a weekly conference call with George bush, was touted in the top 25 most influential evangelists by Time Magazine but admitted in November 2006 to having solicited a prostitute for homosexual sex.

He then underwent three weeks of 'counselling' by four ministers one of whom stated in February 2007 that Haggard was “completely heterosexual”.

Yeah, the Catholic Church is absolutely crawling with illogical inconsistencies that to me, imply some rather dubious consequences (celibate priests, no contraception etc.

But what needs to change even more are local laws to prevent them from extending such anti-democratic power over Australian society- Tony Abbot's absolute reign over medicine, and World Youth Day being major white elephants.

And there is the matter in some countries where Catholic politicians are effectively blackmailed with excommunication for voting against Catholic teaching.

Dear mjpb,

Paul Collins has written quite a lot on
sexual abuse. Too much for me to quote
all of it here. However, I will quote a
part of it:

"The most crippling reality that priests
have to face is the sexual abuse crisis.
They find themselves the butt of nasty jokes,
their profession derided and they are
looked upon with considerable suspicion by
people who often know nothing about the
Catholic church and certainly don't know any
priests personally... No one is denying that
sexual abuse of children is horrendous and
intolerable and that the failure of the
church to deal with it effectively has done
immeasurable damage to victims. The cover-ups,
the protection of abusive clergy and the refusal
to admit egregious mistakes are unjustifiable...
Nowadays, however, ecclesiastical superiors are
proactive and move with alacrity when accusations
are made..."

Just to clarify what csteele is trying to tell us:

If it's homosexual paedophilia then the perpetrators must be heterosexual,
because homosexuals engage in good homosex
and heterosexuals engage in bad homosex.

Glad we got that straight.

“…it is up to Catholics themselves to change”

Well, yes runner, it is up to them to make the necessary changes. But it is also up to the wider community and government to apply pressure to see that they do make those changes.

The negative aspects of the Catholic Church pervade mainstream society, not least with the paedophilia issue. So they must not just be left entirely to make amends in their own good time.

“If people are serious about reducing child sexual abuse they could target the perverted porn industry which is adding to an epidemic of child abuse.”

Really? Could you explain your reasoning.

csteele,
While the John Jay report in the USA determined that 81% of the victims were boys,
the more recent Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin
determined that only 70% of the victims were boys.
You were right as usual.
The problem seems to be trending increasingly heterosexual.

Shadow Minister <"For centuries, the Catholic rule of "celibate" priests has attracted the worst sexual offenders, and due to the scarcity of straight men drawn to the order, the church has needed to shield these paedophiles from the law."

While I am not trying to stand up for the Catholic church, SM seems to assume that because their Priests are required to be celibate that this causes them to be paedophiles?

He also seems to think that the priests are more likely to be homosexuals?
Where is the evidence that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia SM?

What of the many married Anglican ministers and those from other churches who also abused children?
What about those that abused girls? Where does the homosexuals you speak of fit in there?

Paedophiles will seek out children anywhere and anyway they can, because that is their only goal. If they enter religious orders (or scout groups, sporting groups etc) they have more chances of accessing more children. It has nothing to do with celibacy or homosexuality.

The Catholic church still has a long way to go before they can leave this terrible cover-up of paedophile priests in their midst behind them.

The news today tells us that paedophile priests in the Catholic church of Ireland were still being shuffled from Parish to parish after being accused of child sexual abuse as late as 2004.

Herman
Yo have to be the most bigoted simpleminded catholic putz I have eve r come across, unless of course you’re posting al this papist garbage as a joke. Unfortunately I don’t think this is the case. As for the Manhattan declaration you can shove that where the sun doesn’t shine / it’s the vilest, most pernicious load of catholic cr*p vie read since I last read the bible.
How dare you post yourself as a Christian thinking person when you put forward such obvious garbage its pain to read?

runner,

I have commented in the past on OLO that with say a million priests world-wide that statically there are bound to be some perverts and paedophiles. Yet, the more I read about it, it would seem that the word "systematic" is not an exaggeration and more apt. It is more than the odd rotten apple.

Recently, from Ireland, we have the following case:

http://news.google.com.au/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=catholic

[video is under Catholic church admits child abuse]

The State is unwilling to put on trial the cardinals, archbishops and bishops who cover-up the these vile crimes.

One sees Christians often very vocal in public on an issue like gay marriage between consenting adults,yet the same people never muster and as group confront their clergy on these matters. So, it isn't that Christians wont organise and voice an opinion, rather Christians wont organise and voice an opinion against the crimes of Church leaders. For goodness sake, don't these Christians see their hypocracy?

In the above case, there are at least four archbishops named in the inquiry claimed to have covered up sex abuse crimes. Do you not feel these Church leaders should be facing a jury rather than a congregation?

How many OLO posters, whom claim to be Christians, would not try and root-out the perverts in their midst by attacking their Church leaders and bring these sickos down?

If archbishops were/are aware of cover-ups, it would be naive to assume the Vatican was/is unaware.

Runner,

I appreciate your input into these discussions. The only religion outsiders wish to dictate to is Christianity and particularly Catholicism. However I find your assertion that Catholicism is unbiblical to be insulting, annoying and inaccurate. It will take a lot of words to give even a cursory reply so I am going to focus completely on that. I have ignored it enough in similar threads.

Religious beliefs cannot be inferred from the behaviour of the adherents. You cite 2.5 examples of unscriptural behaviour by Catholics and infer that the religion is therefore unscriptural. If that was possible then the brand of Christianity subscribed to by ‘born agains’ could be inferred to include adultery, dishonesty and divorce (given the high rates). That would be very unscriptural.

To put it into perspective you are slandering a 2000 year religion currently with 1.5 billion adherents as unscriptural due to bad behaviour in past history. Bad behaviour is a people thing. There is good and bad in every group. While the Catholic Church has had its share of saints the sinning started pretty quickly. Before the Church got off the ground Judas was despicable. You cite 2 examples (the half is the hiring comment but since Jesus hired Judas I won’t pursue it) which directly relate to bad behaviour.

Anti Semitism in history. There have been Popes who clearly weren’t anti-semitic at very anti-semitic times in history. Our Church was started by a Jewish man (who we have always worshipped) who appointed other Jewish men to carry on his earthly work and our clergy are their successors. That doesn’t mean there has been no anti-semitism but it definitely isn’t part of the faith.

Killed for disbelief. A good example of Catholics killing others would be the British monarchy. There was a historical period when it was pretty much a given that if a protestant monarch got in they would kill unrepentant Catholics and vice versa if a Catholic monarch got it. Nevertheless I assure you that killing people who disagree isn’t part of our religion.

CONT

Suze on line and others,

I had no intention of implying gays were more likely to be paedophiles. Irrespective of the propensity of gays to paedophilia, any institution that excludes normal heterosexual relations to enter an order exclusively male is going to skew the intake. The proof of the pudding is that while it happens in other denominations it is comparitively rare.

The result can be seen in all male prisons and on the sailors. The difference is that sailors and prisoners are not put in positions of trust over children.

I imagine a paedophile with a predeliction for boys could not find a calling with more opportunity and cover.

While I agree that it is for the Catholic Church to implement change, I would also argue that because of the decades of covering up the truth, the Catholic church has come to the end of the tolerance that it can expect from the community. The Church has a small window to implement internal change before society does it for them.

Regarding Mary the Queen title is a scriptural inference. Are you are familiar with the Old Testament practice of the mother of the King rather than wife being the Queen by contrast to the more modern approach (eg. Jeremiah 13:18, 20 which talks about the throne and crown of the mother of the King)? That explains why every time a new King is introduced in 1 Kings and 2 Kings his mother is mentioned as well and why in 2 Kings 24:12 the mother of the King is listed among the members of the royal court and why Bathseba sat at King Solomon’s right. The right hand seat is the place of greatest honour and authority for anyone but the King.

Isaiah 7:14 while prophesizing about the future Messiah pledges that the Davinic dynasty will continue. (A woman bearing a King son in the Davidic dynasty would be a Queen mother.) Matthew 1:23 reveals that to be a prophesy about Jesus. Matthew associates the mother and son 5 times in the first two chapters just like the Book of Kings. Gabriel seems to use strong Davidic innuendos when he describes a woman from the house of David with a royal son whose kingdom will have no end. Then of course Elizabeth describes Mary as “The mother of my Lord”. If you look at 2 Samuel 24:21 you will see that the Davidic Kings were described as my Lord. The mother of my Lord at that time would be the Queen. Topping it off of course is Revelation 12 which describes "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars she was with child…”. Since the child is King Jesus the imagery sure appears like a Queen in Heaven. That interpretation appears consistent with the earlier scriptures I cited. Now unlike the Old Testament Queens our Church firmly gives a subordinate role to Mary one of honour rather than worship. But why is it unscriptural to honour her with that imagery?

CONT.

thomasfromtacoma,
When Perry Como sang "The rudest guys you've never seen are in Seattle",
I'm sure he had you in mind.

You said that priests are forbidden to marry in contrast with scripture. Scripture doesn’t specifically contrast with that. Indeed after about 1000 years of married priests failing to uphold their scriptural obligation to be a “eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” the view must have been taken that Jesus' personal approach was the way to go and the current disciplinary measure was introduced. Even then exceptions are allowed when they are considered appropriate.

Sure the system seemed to get off to a good start. Origen writing in or about 245 (during the time of Roman persecution) in “Against Celsus” which responded to attacks on Christianity by pagan Celsus:

“…as soon as they have accepted the teachings of Jesus and have entrusted themselves to God, that many of them in the manner of perfect priests who abhor all sexual relations, remain completely pure, not only with regard to sex. Among the Athenians there is very likely some [pagan] priest who is not considered capable of subduing his masculine drives and controlling them to the extent he wishes. Therefore, according to the views on chastity prevailing among the Athenians, he is regarded as pure only when his sexual parts have been coated with hemlock juice. Among the Christians, however, men can be found who do not need hemlock juice in order to serve the Divinity in purity. For them, instead of hemlock, the Word of God is sufficient ...”

But as early as 306AD we know that Canon 33 from the Council of Elvira stated:

“We have decreed a general prohibition for married bishops, priests, and deacons or also for all clerics who have been appointed to ministry: they must not come together with their wives and they must not beget children. Whosoever shall do the same shall be expelled from the ranks of clergy.”

The married clerics obviously weren’t being eunuchs or there would be no need to introduce the rule. By the way is there any other exception to the scriptural call to “be fruitful and multiply” in marriage? You know like a pro-contraception scripture?

CONT.

I’ll get back to Runner.

Shadow Minister,

“The proof of the pudding is that while it happens in other denominations it is comparitively rare.”

If that is the proof of the pudding I am not so sure it supports your argument. The Anglican Church has had major problems you should have read the reports. Further:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070821182633/http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070618/28035_Released_Figures_Offer_Glimpse_into_Protestant_Sex_Abuse_Problems.htm

“I imagine a paedophile with a predeliction for boys could not find a calling with more opportunity and cover.”

Wow what a perfect cover. Yes I can just imagine a paedophile thinking “I’ll become a Catholic priest noone will ever suspect that I could be a paedophile”. Watch out for the low flying pigs! Why I couldn't resist sarcasm is anyone’s guess.

“The Church has a small window to implement internal change before society does it for them.”

Can you please advise what change can be made? Entrants are screened, training is changed, handling is changed, and systems are put in place to assist victims. What else would you suggest?

Foxy,

I meant this Collins comment:

"Nowadays, however, ecclesiastical superiors are proactive and move with alacrity when accusations are made. Some priests now feel authorities have moved too far toward the other end of the spectrum... the rights of accused priests are often 'overlooked or ignored', ...often not been given legal advice or experienced support persons. They were frequently cajoled into making admissions and agreeing to resign... Priests are assumed to be guilty, their rights to fairness and a presumption of innocence ignored, and they are dismissed from ministry by bishops or superiors without any legal process, often before they have been afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused priests have been kept in the dark by bishops witholding accusations or aspects of accusations. There is confusion between what are actually 'boundary violations', that is consensual adult sexual encounters, and the sexual abuse of children, which falls under the jurisdictions of criminal and canon law...A similar situation has emerged in the UK where a church lawyer who defends accused priests said that 'bishops cannot be trusted to help priests accused of child abuse'"

mjpb,

You make some interesting remarks.

Your biblical citations do not sit well with the traditional understanding of virgin birth. Also, Jesus would have been as far removed from the House of David than we are from the Battle of Hastings. Prseumably, there would have been thousands of descendants of David.

On Larry King a few years back a Catholic church historian being interviewed said that one reason that priests could not marry was to prevent the formation of internal dynasties having centralised power.

Burton Mack notes notes, some other earlier Middle Eastern cults also practised abstinance and, in addition, had prohibitions against castration.

There are of course good pragmatic reasons why Catholic priests
are banned from marrying. Feeding all those wives and children
would cost the Church serious money!

A priest might well have inherited some money or saved a few bob
during his lifetime. He might well leave it to the church, legacies
are after all a serious income for the Vatican. Not so, if there
are a bunch of wives and kids, all wanting their share.

rude but right huh
hoiman

MJPB,

In your link, initially the numbers seem the same, but when you look closer, the protestant cases are for all reported cases of preachers, lay workers and volunteers.

The catholic cases are for priests only, and only "credible" cases.

This would imply that the cases for catholic priests vs protestant priests is still much much larger.

Your sarcasm indicates that even in your mind catholic priests are synonomous with paedophilia.

What more can they do? What you mention is the very least they can get away with.

The minimum should also include external auditing, to expose cases without having to wait decades, immediate criminal prosecution of those involved, and dismissal of anyone involved in a cover up.

Major reform would mean abolishing the requirement for unmarried priests.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/counsellor-abused-molested-boy-court-told-20091201-k2yw.html

A Catholic brother is accused of sexually assaulting a boy he had been counselling after the youngster was molested by another man, a court has been told.

'nuff said.

Shadow Minister,

"In your link, initially the numbers seem the same, but when you look closer, the protestant cases are for all reported cases of preachers, lay workers and volunteers."

Since they don't give the breakup it is hard to know whether most were preachers or evenly balanced or lay people. But what I can point out is that it isn't for all protestant churches they insure 166, 000 of the 224, 000 + "several thousand" black Churches.

Further, it only deals with cases involving insurance not all credible allegations.

"This would imply that the cases for catholic priests vs protestant priests is still much much larger."

Would you agree that the raw numbers are bigger for a subset of a smaller group involving a subset of the types of allegations considered in the larger group. I'd add that anyone accusing a Catholic priest would immediately believed but the usual rule about not coming forward due to not being believed probably applies to the others. It is not cut and dried but overall it seems to suggest the opposite.

"Your sarcasm indicates that even in your mind catholic priests are synonomous with paedophilia."

In my mind that is the public consciousness yes. This is driven by the media approach such as largely ignoring the information that I cited. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

"The minimum should also include external auditing, to expose cases without having to wait decades, immediate criminal prosecution of those involved, and dismissal of anyone involved in a cover up."

There has already been a type of external auditing because the Catholic Church is very interconnected and prosecutors who get a case use the opportunity to go on a fishing expedition with locating other offenders not an unknown result. If Collins is on the mark then most of what you say is already happening.

"Major reform would mean abolishing the requirement for unmarried priests."

You may believe that reforming the Catholic Church would involve allowing abortion, contraception, and married priests. But those 'reforms' would be unlikely to have an effect on paedophilia (doesn't it normally happen with relatives?).

Runner,

The next thing I note is:

There is nothing unscriptural about infant baptism and many protestants practice it, eg. Anglicans and Lutherans, and most protestants historically have practised it. Please let me know if you can find some scripture that actually prohibits the baptism of babies. Your denomination obviously makes inferences from the scriptures that only adults should be baptized. We make inferences from the scriptures that babies are suitable candidates. We may take different views on the meaning of the scriptures but that is no grounds to brand us unscriptural. Besides, who is to say that your denomination's interpretation has to be the right one when ours has been passed down as far back as we can tell in a Church started by Jesus and His apostles (who wrote the New Testament and were trained by Jesus)?

I am well on the way through your list and you haven't yet responded to anything. I'd be interested to read your denominations take on these things. It is all very well to say these things are unscriptural but for the reasons I've given it doesn't sound right as a bare accusation. Alternatively, if you don't think you can support your accusations then please stop bagging my Church. We are all Christians and we all believe in the Holy Scriptures and with all due respect ours is the Church of the Bible. You may not like what it teaches and you are entitled to choose something else but don't call it unscriptural.

MJPB,

In a church, there is one priest, and a number of staff and volunteers. A conservative estimate would be a ratio of 10 support person to one cleric. Secondly considering that Catholics are in the minority in the US this makes it even worse.

As soon as I see deliberate skewing of the figures by not comparing apples with apples I see a desperate cover up.

There has been external investigation forced upon the church, but no voluntary external audit. The failure to do so implies a fear of further exposure.

Abortion and contraception have nothing to do paedohilia, but "celibate" priests undoubtedly does.

Shadow Minister,

Summary of American sexual abuse of minors:

Protestant annual incidence: 260 (insurance claims only) plus an unknown proportion of 73 insurance claims from insurer who doesn't specify whether or not they are minors plus those from the 64, 000 protestant Churches not with those 3 insurers. This includes pastors and others in the Church.

Catholic annual incidence between 1950 and 2002: 228 including all credible allegations. This is solely from pastors and the Catholic Church is smaller in America (as you correctly indicated and which I had incorrectly assumed was larger).

I think the "desperate cover up" is in your imagination. The two sources of information are completely independent. Whenever they are brought together it is because they are the known facts and one gets widely reported the other doesn't.

"...no voluntary external audit. The failure to do so implies a fear ..."

Well now that you mention it. American Catholic Bishops invited the City University of New York to do a study and asked all their underlings to extend full cooperation. It investigated credible allegations of sexual abuse for people under the age of 18 by Catholic priests from 1950 and 2002. Sexual abuse was defined to include "contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult. A child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not it involves genital or physical contact, whether or not it is initiated by the child, and whether or not there is discernible harmful outcome". It would be interesting to know the numbers if they just looked at physical sexual contact with under 18s.

"Abortion and contraception have nothing to do paedohilia, but "celibate" priests undoubtedly does."

I have been celibate for periods of time without developing an inkling of sexual interest in young children so forgive my skepticism. Also, as a Christian, I don't believe Jesus would call for something that would lead to paedophilia. Undoubtedly is a strong word. Do you know someone who has shown that tendency?

MJPB,

In the article it was 260 reports not claims. For OH&S we had 20 reported incidents (cuts etc) and no claims, as all incidents need to be reported to the insurers to get our risk profile. The reports would include those credible or not.

Your review as in your last post is not an audit. For example company books are subject to an audit to test the validity of the accounts.

An audit would involve speaking to many of those that had not complained as well to detect if unreported incidents had been covered up. (as many of these incidents are only surfacing decades later)

I did not claim that celibacy caused paedophilia, only that the requirment for "celebacy" attracted paedophiles. If you can show otherwise I will stand corrected, but I doubt it.

Shadow Minister,

"An audit would involve speaking to many of those that had not complained as well to detect if unreported incidents had been covered up. (as many of these incidents are only surfacing decades later)"

Perhaps then you should suggest that to the appropriate officials in the Catholic Church as that would definitely bring things to a new level. Even when you started discussing it with me it went over my head so I doubt whether it would be something in the pipeline. Perhaps you can provide them with examples of other groups who audit for paedophilia so that they can learn from the systems.

"I did not claim that celibacy caused paedophilia, only that the requirment for "celebacy" attracted paedophiles. If you can show otherwise I will stand corrected, but I doubt it."

That is a little more meaningful then my assumption as historically it could have been used as a front but as I've hinted I would have thought the last place a paedophile would consider hiding to go undetected these days would be in the role of a Catholic priest.

Runner,

Can you support your allegations? I really don't want to go to the next thread on this topic and just read them again. It would be nice to deal with this issue now one way or another.

The idea that celibacy attracts paedophiles is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Why on earth would someone who engages in deviant sexual practices want to join a club where all sexual practices are banned?

That said, the whole thread is fraught with hyperbole. That the worst sex offenders exist only within the Catholic Church is another unsubstantiated assertion. The Governor General who stood down in response to a sex scandal was Anglican, not Catholic. The vast majority of paedophiles are not Catholic priests. What it boils down to is that the Catholic demand for celibacy does not cause priests to go stir-crazy and become paedophiles. And it doesn't attract paedophiles to the job, either. I seriously doubt that there is any real connection between church-enforced celibacy and paedophilia.

Otokonoko,

Sometimes I despair.

Catholic priests are supposedly celibate, but the structure essentially guards against female contact, but allows contact with other men and their wards (usually children). This discourages heterosexual males, but not those of other persuasions, who are protected from the consequences of their actions by a slap on the hand and the transfer to a fresh bunch of victims.

There was no implication that all or even most paedophile are catholic priests, but that there was an inordinate number who are given the cloak of religious respectablity whilst performing abominable acts.

That it happens in other faiths is not a surprise, but as indicated above it happens to a lesser extent, whereas in the Catholic Church it appears to be endemic.

Shadow Minister,

Please don't despair. The comments were reasonable.

Currently in the Catholic Church most people priests deal with are women. The top advisers the Pope uses tend to be female. Women do anything from extraordinary ministry and running RCIA courses to secretarial or administrative support for a parish priest and of course there have always been nuns or at least the Apostle Paul's comment that priests have a right to have a Christian woman assist them and early references to deaconess' would suggest that. Further, at regular Novus Ordo Masses the alter servers tend to be girls.

"This discourages heterosexual males, but not those of other persuasions, who are protected from the consequences of their actions by a slap on the hand and the transfer to a fresh bunch of victims."

Any paedophiles that I've ever heard of getting unconvered end up in jail. I heard a rumour about Ireland recently but in most countries if a psychologist advised a Bishop that a priest was cured of paedophilia they would not rely upon that type of thing anymore and I doubt that any psychologist would give that type of advice these days. Foxy's book would suggest that it is the opposite in Australia.

"There was no implication that all or even most paedophile are catholic priests, but that there was an inordinate number who are given the cloak of religious respectablity whilst performing abominable acts."

True but you seem to single out Catholics.

"That it happens in other faiths is not a surprise, but as indicated above it happens to a lesser extent, whereas in the Catholic Church it appears to be endemic."

I don't believe you can say it is a lesser extent with certainty on the available facts. The gross numbers are higher but there are a lot of other facts that weigh in the other direction if clerics alone are looked at.

In any case it really stretches credibility that a paedophile would expect to be trusted with children if he became a Catholic priest.

All,

When will it end?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,1,26440237-3102,00.html

This happens again and again and again and again! And, again!

The politicians know it, the judges know it, and the police know it?

But what happens? bl**dy, nothing! The offending priest are transferred and the bishops cover-up.

Every Catholic should be their priest's face and asking why, why, why, for goodness sake, why?

Perhaps, church goers should not donate in the collection plate for six months to protest.

The Irish examples are worse than thos just cited.

The US Authorities tried to interview a past Bishop of Boston, on;e he shot of the Vatican, where the Pope is protecting him.

ditto for the Protestant's, where applicable.

In threads just like this surely we have seen 1000 posts?
And maybe 40 such threads?
About tens of cases.
Yes other Church's too, none however as often as Catholics.
Not as many victims and surely not as much evidence of covering up the crimes?
Even after this thread started another story and cover up.
The Catholic church may be both unable to change and unable to survive.
Would you Bord your children with church run school? truly?

MJPB,

The thread was started based on the report of what has happened in the Irish catholic church over the past few decades which amounts to abuse on a horrifying scale. So while there may be issues in other denominations, they are diversions from the original topic.

The other statistical fudging in the article you posted, was that there were 13000 credible reports in the US since 1950 giving an average of 260 p.a. Since in the 50's, 60's the reporting was almost non existent, and the victims have only recently felt empowered to speak up, the figures since the 80's would probably paint a very different figure.

Not being of any denomination, and looking in from the outside, the catholic church stands out as the single worst offender.

The issue is that pedophiles working as priests often go undetected, and as such are not uncovered. Even when one was uncovered, the church usually paid the hush money and moved him on.

Shadow Minister et al.,

Yes. And the paying of hush money and covering-up crimes is not pursued. The peers of the offending priests and the bishops should be put on trial for obstruction of justice.

A Royal Commission would be only as strong as the reach of its powers, I suspect.

Any Royal Commission should allow bishops to be called beforea judicial and gaoled for cover-ups and any contempt of proceedings. Moreover, the AFP could be given the appropriate powers, to capture documents and, interview priests and lay staff, where there are suspicious transfers. It wont would if Cardinal can tell the Police to get lost.

Someone is paying extra-judicial hush money and their signatures are on the bottom cheques in Bank vouchger rooms. So, those Christian leaders whom seek to pervert the course of justice can be identified.

The Catholic Church also works on the principle of "belated disclosure", as to create the impression every thing happened 20-30 years back:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iV9RaG8JwI6TAiFfjSHzocPBPseQ

Offenses didn't happen only 1950s and 1960s.

Good Morning Everyone,

What a beautiful Sunday morning it is
in Melbourne...

I've been away from this thread for a while -
and I've just come back - and
find that we're still more or less on condemnation...

Of course the cases of sexual abuse has done enormous harm.
But it's more than that. Paul Collins, "Believers," explains:

"The kind of uncompromising, unfriendly, and unattractive
'boots and all,' bully-boy style of Catholicism that is
often reflected by some leading church people probably
does more harm ...Vituperation, name-calling, shrill
denunciation, sneering and an entirely unconvincing
triumphalism are the principle modes of expressing
disagreement on any issue..."

"This sort of image presents the most unappealing possible
picture of what it is to be a Catholic, or to live as a
Catholic..."

"The image presented makes Catholicism unattractive and certainly
not worthy of intelligent consideration...Also bad, rejecting
experiences in church institutions and unsympathetic ministry
from critical or pharisaical Catholics are remembered for
years by those who experience them."

I agree with Paul Collins. "People are attracted by good
people and most are much more likely to become motivated
by hope and interest in God through good experiences..."

The church does need to change. However as I've stated
in my earlier post - Catholicism has survived
because ultimately it is adaptable and able to change.

Collins says:

"Personally, I am optimisitc that Catholicism in Australia
will survive, certainly with lesser numbers, but with more
commitment and ministerial energy. But to achieve that
Catholics will require genuine local leadership and a
willingness to confront both the difficulties and
opportunities that the church faces..."

Let's also remember that the rituals enacted
in any religion enhance
the solidarity of the community as well as its faith.

Baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings, Sabbath services,
Christmas mass, and funerals. Rituals like these
serve to bring people together, to remind them of their
common group membership, to re-affirm their
traditional values, to offer comfort in times of crisis.
and, in general, to help transmit the cultural heritage
from one generation to the next.

Foxy,

"Rituals like (weddings)
serve to...re-affirm their
traditional values...to help transmit the cultural heritage
from one generation to the next."

Yet you would try to fundamentally alter the very concept of marriage by redefining it to include SSM,
thus unaffirming traditional values and destroying our cultural heritage.
SSM is like a slap in the face for the very people who hold their traditional values and cultural heritage the most dearly.
However do you reconcile SSM with the importance of maintaining traditional values and cultural heritage?
Or is it just feel-good drivel that you haven't really thought about hard enough?

BTW, lately you've been cut and pasting more quotes than original material.
How about letting us hear what Foxy thinks in her own words and providing a link to your sources of inspiration.
I know there are no rules, but I personally stop reading after a while if the quotes get overlong.
Just an observation.

A beautiful day in Melbourne; who would've thought.

Dear Herman,

Thank You for pulling me up on quoting so
much. I'm afraid it's an occupational
hazard. I'm a librarian - and tend to rely
on books a great deal. However, I'll try
to not quote as much in future...

As for my comments on the same-sex marriage
thread that I initiated. The comments were
fairly clear and self-explanatory. As well
as my reasons for them. I have
no intention of explaining myself to you any
further.
I feel that all you're doing here is simply stirring,
and with all due respect - I'm not going to bite.

cont'd...

Dear Herman,

I was in a hurry with my previous post and
forgot to add - (just by way of information
for you). Another reason that I
quoted Paul Collins is the fact that he is one
of Australia's most respected commentators on
the Catholic church. A graduate of Harvard
Divinity School and the Australian National
University, he is a former priest, a historian,
and a broadcaster. He's also a former specialist
editor of religion for the ABC. He's written many
books on the topic of the Catholic church.

I thought it appropriate to quote from an expert
such as he - in addition to expressing my own opinion.
As I stated previously - quoting from reliable sources
of expertise is part and parcel of my profession.

Foxy,
When you make apparently contradictory statements which I am unable to reconcile I think it's reasonable to ask you to explain.
This is not stirring, this is..
"Hey, what's going on here?
You said this before and now you're saying the apparent opposite."
I ask again...
How can people "re-affirm their traditional values (and) transmit the(ir) cultural heritage from one generation to the next" when you are calling for them to fundamentally change those values with respect to SSM and essentially calling them bigots and homophobes if they don't?
Or are they only permitted to transmit those values and cultural heritage which pass your personal test, whatever that might be?
If you don't explain what you mean, it seems fair to assume that you can't.

Dear Herman,

This thread is about religion, i.e. The given
title is:
"It's time for the Catholic church to change..."
That's the topic here. We're not discussing
same-sex marriage which is an argument based
for equality and not religion. If we are a
country governed by a secular democracy,
then we should both support this, and start
acting like it.

What don't you understand about what I've said
in my posts here?

I'll quote what I did say again:

"Let's remember that the rituals enacted in
ANY RELIGION enhance the solidarity of the
community as well as its faith..."
Et cetera .... I was referring to religious
rituals (including religious marriages).

I can't make it any simpler for you.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a separate
issue altogether. Civil and religious marriages
are two separate institutions. And as I've
stated all of my arguments on that particular
thread - I don't care to delve into them
again.

It seems that the problem here lies not in the
fact that I'm unable to explain things to you,
but in the fact that you either choose not to be able
to understand or you reject what is being said.

In either case, I can't be held responsible.

Foxy,
Now I get it.
When SSM is legalised and all members of society are forced to recognise them and churches are forced to perform them, under penalty of law, the ritual of the same sex wedding enactment will "re-affirm the traditional values" of the church and society that marriage is between a man and a woman.
This will help to "transmit the cultural heritage".
Moreover, other traditional values like children having the birthright of a father and a mother will also be re-affirmed.
It's finally clear.
Thank you for your patience.

All,

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iUCy5wlXsFvcyRaltsnQAfVoKgTQD9CE2MT80

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g2fEt53plha-noex1aUNxD8b7I1g

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/28/2754987.htm?section=world

The best way for the Catholic church to change for the better is, stop protecting its criminal clergy. Cover-ups and compensation (hush money) are not answers. Lisewise, senior police must understand that ecclesiastical separation at Law was dispensed with at least two hundred years ago. Preists who molest children and nuns who strap their charges should be behind bars. Bishops who stand the way of the police, should be arrested and tried as the common criminals they, where obstruct the course of justice.

I appreciate the repetitive nature of my posts to this thread, yet should just shut up, when no one sees the injustice? I think not.

What we don't want to hear in 2020, is "belated discloure" of what will be happening now in 2009. And, listen to a future day cardinal sayig, sorry, we will change. Ditto, 2030, ditto 2040, ditto 2050...

Arresting the odd priest is a start. But, it like the Marfia or a drug gang, the leaders must roll, if guilty

Oliver,

It would be a good start if you read your Courier Mail story.

It had nothing to do with priests or bishops. It was about a Catholic school where a teacher was found not guilty of charges and some administrator failed to pass on some information.

Shadow Minister,

The thread was started based on the report on how the Dublin Catholic Church and state authorities handled child abuse allegations in past decades. It found that 4 Bishops 3 now dead and 1 now retired didn’t pass on information about abusers and that state authorities at the time facilitated the problem with some police reporting complaints to the Bishops rather than doing their own investigation.

“So while there may be issues in other denominations, they are diversions from the original topic.”

They don’t practice clerical celibacy so it is directly on point. The heading is “When is the Catholic Church going to change” and attributed paedophilia to celibate priests and a need to shield paedophiles from the law due to the scarcity of straight men.

”Until the church changes, its claim to moral guidance is the worst form of hypocrasy.”

As I’ve said it has changed irrespective of what further changes you suggested within this thread.

”...statistical fudging ...Since in the 50's, 60's the reporting was almost non existent, and the victims have only recently felt empowered to speak up, the figures since the 80's would probably paint a very different figure.”

The term “Catholic priest” has almost become synonymous with the term “paedophile” thanks to the media interest in Catholic cases and lack of interest in protestant or secular cases. People molested in the 60s have come forward. Ironically there is a clear cluster between the 60s and 80s. This was due to a loosening of clerical ethical standards after a council called Vatican II with a subsequent 'tightening up' and later a response to the scandal.

"The best way for the Catholic church to change for the better is, stop protecting its criminal clergy..."

It already does. Did you read the Paul Collins quotes about the contemporary situation?

mjpb,

"Toowoomba Magistrate Haydn Stjernqvist said the principal had complied with his reporting obligations and it was the person/s who received the report detailing sexual abuse allegations that must hand it up to police.

Mr Stjernqvist said it was clear 'that a person in the school or the school's governing body has committed an offence'.

But Toowoomba Police District Detective Inspector Brett Schafferius said no further charges could be laid in regards to the matter because a six-month time limit for police action had expired." - Courier Mail

I read the above to say that the Catholic school principal did comply with reporting requirements, yet someone else (lay or clergy)did not pass the information on to police in time for police to act. That said, a six month reporting deadline seems inadequate.

In the US (Boston?), I believe the police did pursue a Bishop but he fled to the Vatican, where he is being given protection.

Also,

http://cassandrajonesing.blogspot.com/2009/06/rev-gianfranco-ghirlanda-s-j.html

To quote (the site), from the above, referring to Rev. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J. (Society of Jesus), Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University:

"Catholic bishops should not turn over allegations or records of sexual abuse by priests to the civil authorities, ... though American bishops have been sued in civil court for failing to remove abusive priests, 'from a canonical point of view, the bishop or religious superior is neither morally nor legally responsible for a criminal act committed by one of his clerics,' but that if a bishop knew of accusations and failed to investigate, or if he failed to remove a known abuser from the ministry, then under canon law he would have some legal and moral responsibility'."

I agree the Church and its senior clergy do not become enjoined with criminal activity until such time as they try to pay hush money or "move" and "protect" abusers. I suspect in most cases the bishops are not abusers, rather they become involved in preventing the natural course of justice, perhaps with the view clerics to some extent outside of Secular Law: A state within a state.

HermanYutic,

The catholic church has made a few changes in recognising that the earth is not the centre of the solar system, and that it does not have the god given right to torture and kill heretics.

I don't expect the catholic church to change their dogma with respect to contraception, abortion, homosexuality, or divorce, as the rest of the world has moved on without them. Similarily, I have no issues with what goes on between the consenting adults behind abbey walls.

However, I do want action to prevent the damage they inflict on the most vulnerable in our society. The actions required are:

Expose and prosecute those responsible, and those involved in hiding and protecting the perpetrators.

Find and eliminate the root cause for the prevalence of this behaviour. I suggested that higher rate of occurence in the catholic church was probably due to the requirement for "celebacy" of its priests, but there are probably other causes too.

MJPB,

The relatively high incidence in the catholic church vs other denominations might be relevant to the root causes, but is a distraction from the abuse that is occurring and the need for the catholic church to make fundemental changes.

Shadow Minister,

"However, I do want action to prevent the damage they inflict on the most vulnerable in our society. The actions required are:

Expose and prosecute those responsible"

tick

"and those involved in hiding and protecting the perpetrators."

Logistically more difficult and many are probably dead.

"Find and eliminate the root cause for the prevalence of this behaviour."

Whether the root cause is unhappy childhoods or genes I don't think the onus should be put on the Catholic Church to deal with that. They should only screen applicants, and locate and deal with offenders.

"I suggested that higher rate of occurence in the catholic church was probably due to the requirement for "celebacy" of its priests, but there are probably other causes too."

First you will have to establish the "higher rate of occurence" from something more compelling than media attitude toward the Catholic Church.

"The relatively high incidence in the catholic church vs other denominations might be relevant to the root causes, but is a distraction from the abuse that is occurring and the need for the catholic church to make fundemental changes."

It is not clear that it is a relatively high incidence.

Dear Herman,

By all means have and enjoy your
religion and your views, fight for
a moral society and try to evangelize
all the gay-loving radicals all you like ...

Australians will eventually decide on
the issue of same-sex marriage and
what you or I think
- nobody will really care.

Shadow Minister,

<Find and eliminate the root cause for the prevalence of this behaviour.>

Even as we speak a small part of the problem is being addressed:

"cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Which unfortunately doesn't address the far bigger problem of purging the existing ranks.

Fact: Priests have more than four times higher death-rate from AIDS than the general population.
Question: How would a priest acquire AIDS?
Answer: The same way any other homosexual would.

For an eye-opening read:
"The Gay Priest Problem"
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=20565

MJPB,

I beg to differ: read this article and then comment.

http://exchristian.net/2/2006/12/clergy-sex-abuse-widespread-across.html

"Extensive research by the three authors, which includes documents in church archives, indicates that about 30 percent of the 50,000 priests and bishops in the U.S. are homosexual, Sipe says.

About 9 percent of priests in the U.S. over the past 50 years have sexually abused a minor at least once, he says.

The abusers include homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals, he said. He estimates that 64 percent of the abusers are homosexual, 27 percent are heterosexual and 9 percent are bisexual."

Unless you have anything to show that say the protestant churches have close to 9% paedophilic priests I would have to say that it is quite conclusive.

Your comment of "Whether the root cause is unhappy childhoods or genes I don't think the onus should be put on the Catholic Church to deal with that. They should only screen applicants, and locate and deal with offenders." is not sufficient.

As most offenders aren't picked up until multiple offenses are committed, and as per the article, only 10% of the priests had any record whatsoever, your proposal is basically business as usual.

The cause is due to the structure of the church, and cosmetic changes are not sufficient.

Shadow Minister,

I skimmed through the article.Actually I have seen similar estimates for protestants.

The article also included Clohessy of SNAP pointing out that "an extraordinary tiny percentage of pedophiles go into the priesthood." Minors are anyone up to age 18. You need to draw a distinction between paedophiles and having sex with post pubescent males particularly since the homosexual age of consent was only lowered to heterosexual standards fairly recently. Previously the gay sex with a participant who could legally participate if they were heterosexual was abuse. That looks bad for both Catholics and homosexuals but isn't an issue any more.

What happened was that in Ireland especially you either had to get married or be a priest. Social demands were strong. If you were a homosexual and hated women then the only choice to look respectable was to be a priest. They never went in priesthood to be raving sex maniacs but to avoid that situation. However you cannot suppress male hormones as we all know.

Moving forward, now that men can remain single or even frequent happy bars without tut tuts hopefully the sexual abuse toward children will reduce.

The mental abuse though. I had the Catholic religion forced down my throat by women wearing tents and my firey irish mother. At one stage I was too scared to go to the toilet in case God was watching me. How embarassing, I mean! Not to mention the burning in hell nightmares after I stole a cookie from the cookie jar. Can I sue?

MJPB,

I can't believe that you are trying to make excuses for their behaviour. Sex with a minor when you are in a position of trust is never OK. Ask Roman Polanski.

As priests are only a tiny fraction of the population, but 9% is far higher than in the general population.

As the majority of priests are genuinely decent people, they must be suffering the most from the general perception that Catholic priest = paedophile. The trust they have had for centuries is evaporating, the churches are emptying, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

They have a relatively small window in which to repair the damage, and business as usual is not going to cut it.

TheMissus,

"Moving forward"

Moving forward and being constructive makes sense to me. But the Catholic Church needs to be consultative, listen and in sense be responsive to community needs. Something which would be to hard for the Church, after two thousand years of telling people what to do and what not to do. Bishops, I suspect, see themselves a cut above the laity. Yet, it is the laity’s Church too, and, it is they, whom have responsibility to its leaders in their place. The laity should be acting to make their church an “open operating” system. This way, the rotten wood would be exposed and disposed of.

I am not a theist but I can say if did want to reform an organisation, I would encourage my peers to join me in a protest. The current case, the problem would be, that most of the laity would see their clerics as “god substitutes”, rather than their fellows. And the clerics with the most to hide would play to that ignorance.

All,

Is not the laity just a little too lax and ready to be led? OLO Theists: Why not be a little less like flock and more like shephards occasionally? Demand change. I don't see any rational God prohibiting theists going to another domination's service, in protest, for a Month of Sundays, to help stamp-up paedophilia.

Perhaps, the Catholic Church needs to be weaned away from hierarhcy towards mutualism (with the laity) and the matrix management of the institution. Also, pseudo-deification of the clergy and the vow of oberdience would be major obstacles

runner,

The Catholic Church must uphold community standards. Any autonomy is held on the basis of achieving these standards. The community has the right same right to tell the Catholic Church "what to do" as it has the Mafia or Hell's Angels. That said, if the Church behave it should be left alone.

The Church's inaction that draws bad press to itself. It is the cover-ups and code of silence that needs to be addressed. All-in-all, the Church might have a role for theists, outside of the oft reported deeds of some (not all) of its members.

As I stated, above the Church wants to re,ain a "closed system" with the clerics in control, herein too much is kept in-house. The State needs breach its walls, to expose secular crimes.

Dear Oly,

I agree with you. A great part of the problem
is the lack of creative leadership at a diocesan
and national level, as well as from the failure of
the papacy to acknowledge the ministerial crisis
facing local churches like Australia.

The shortage of priests, the denial of the Eucharist
and sacraments to millions of Catholics, the
ministerial role of women, refusing to confront the
internal issues facing Catholicism, all have been
ignored or stymied for decades. And, it appears
that change won't come from the top. The current
pope doesn't appear to be a "progressive pope."
That's why bishops are important. But, a big
problem is that many bishops feel that their sole
responsibility is upward to Rome, because it was
the Vatican that appointed them.

However, the time for action has well and truly
arrived. I don't think it's too late for changes
to occur - Catholicism has survived because it is
adaptable and able to change but as I wrote earlier,
Catholics will need genuine local leadership and a
willingness to confront both the difficulties
and the opportunities that the church faces.

Change can and must come.

Shadow Minister,

"I can't believe that you are trying to make excuses for their behaviour. Sex with a minor when you are in a position of trust is never OK. Ask Roman Polanski."

Don't you mean therapists or something? The victim of Polanski said it was a forced rape. Independent research found about 4% of priests to be within their definition of abuse of minors. The definition did not require the priest to initiate the behaviour nor require any physical contact and was thus broader than most people's expectation if they just see the figure. I'm not saying it is okay but it is miles away from anyone's concept of child abuse. However the stuff that started off the scandal was a few paedophile priests preying on kids and that is more than not okay. That is tragic.

But it is not okay to pretend that paedophilia is a Catholic problem or the Catholic Church is the same as it was in the 60s. A surprising amount of criminal activity showed up in a Church and a multitude of actions were taken to address it. The naivity is gone and the 60s lack of transparency in any organisation is long gone. However because the Church isn't pro-abortion etc. the history is taken out of context, misrepresented and everyone with a barrow to push uses it for rhetorical advantage. Enough is enough. That is what I am saying quite firmly. I'm not making excuses for the inexcusable.

"As priests are only a tiny fraction of the population, but 9% is far higher than in the general population."

Have you considered that the book might be sensationalising? An independent study with a definition of abuse so broad as to be almost meaningless could only scrape up a 4% figure.

Even when other religious groups do get reported in the media for similar misconduct the issue is treated differently as Archbishop Dolan points out with regard to the New York Times in the following article.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17538

He rightly concludes "...writes Archbishop Dolan, who also admits that “the Catholic Church is not above criticism.”

“We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody.
..."

Dear mjpb,

Out of curiousity I googled,
"Child sexual abuse by Protestant Clergy,"
and found quite a number of websites.

It seems that clergy sexual abuse is not
just a Catholic problem as some people
seem to think.

The following website in the New York Times
was only one of many that people can google
for themselves:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/us/16protestant.html
"Data shed light on child sexual abuse by Protestant Clergy.
June 16 2007. By the Associated Press.

Foxy,

Thank you! I know we don't see all Catholic Church issues exactly alike and you could easily exploit the situation by being disingenous so I really appreciate that. For example I doubt that you think priests should be celibate.

With regard to the stats you mention Shadow Minister considers it an irrelevant diversion. It is true that a direct comparison is impossible but the figures show that protestant Churches have a similar problem.

The figures in the article you put forward suggest many more protestant molestions if the third insurance company had a similar trend to the other two. However Protestant Churches are bigger in the US and the Catholic stats are just for priests. Then there is the issue of reporting for insurance vs. any credible allegation not requring physical contact or initiation by the priest. Then of course there is the credibility for Catholic priest allegations compared with a presumed expectation to be believed compared with the usual fear of being disbelieved. Etc. So it is impossible due to the differences to know who 'wins" but it is clear that there is a substantial problem in the protestant Churches. That I argue is relevant to holding out the Catholic Church as being the problem and singling it out.

Dear mjpb,

You're most welcome.
I've always enjoyed discussing things
with you and I greatly admire your knowledge
of the Catholic church.

As for the celibacy of priests, I see that as
a requirement of church law that could be
changed today. There's a shortage of priests,
and to ordain properly trained married men
would go towards solving that problem.
But that's just my opinion, and as you know -
I'm not an expert on the topic.

Dear Foxy,

Though a skeptic, I was Confirmed a Catholic. Holding back the Eucharist is nothing short blackmail and in direct opposition to rememberance of the Chris, for believers.

I think that Catholics should revisit the claim of Papal Infallibility Ex Cathedra and not twist Cannon law. I am certainly no expert on these matters but understand the American bishops do tend to be a little more autonomous in their thinking than in most other countries.

Some suggest JP II over time contrived the conservative College of Cardinals, knowing it would lead to the election of a Pope like Benedict. Even in Australia, we see Church oppsoition to High Rights leglisation, suggesting the Church doesn't bend to the standards of modern communties and it fears it will subjected to Secular rules.

If the impetus of Vatican II had not died, I think we would have seen more reform.

Regards.

Oly.

Dear Oly,

It's going to be interesting to see what
will happen in the future. My feeling still
is that if you've been around for 2000 years
you will have learned to adapt. There is
of course as Paul Collins points out a
theological explanation for this: that Christ
predicted that through his Holy Spirit he would
be with the church 'always to the end of the age."
(Matthew 28:20).

This doesn't mean that the church won't make
mistakes. It infers that the Holy Spirit would
sustain the church through all the vicissitudes of
history in the sense that ultimately the church
would not betray Christ or lose the sense of his
message completely. Its a case of the Spirit of God
assisting the church to make sense eventually out
of its own human confusion.

Therefore I don't have a sense of hopelessness and
pessimism. I still believe that the Australian church
is the right size to be able to change.

But as I said - only the future will tell.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you.

You may be right on both counts regarding priestly celibacy.

However on the first count whilst it is literally correct there may be more to it than meets the eye.

There is no reason to think Jesus required celibacy even though he was celibate himself. However it would appear that he required sexual continence for his priests (assuming by eunuch he meant they were to be sexually continent cf. literally emasculating themselves) Later it would seem that for a long time priests could marry but couldn’t have sex. For about 1000 years there has been a celibacy rule.

If the celibacy rule was lifted would we go back to married priests who can’t have sex (which I believe was the position before the Second Lateran Council which introduced the celibacy requirement)? That would be the obvious default position but I doubt if anyone calling for married priests would accept that solution. Therefore it might be a big event if the Church decided to change. That would presumably result in recourse to scriptures and tradition to work out what is required. If it was determined that Jesus required priests to be sexually continent but could marry then it would bounce back to the same result as the simple solution albeit via a much more involved circuitous route probably involving a Church Council. But if it was determined that that is what Jesus required the Church would have no choice. He is the boss. Now I may be way off the mark with all this. It is pure speculation but it is something that I wonder. It may be that if the rule was abrogated priests could simply participate in marriages like many of the protestant denominations.

As regards the second issue, there is debate as to whether or not it would work and I suspect it is unlikely that the Church would do anything in the current climate. More likely they’ll just work to eradicate paedophilia and not go out on a limb with changes until the scandal abates.

mjpb,

According to Zias, Essene communities had a disproportion number of male graves, suggesting a largely segregated male community. Christians, Essenes and similar sects were did practise celibacy to high extent. In Christian and similar sect communities, some celibacy existed in marriage. Symbolically, the Catholics still retain the (virgin)Brides of Christ. Some sects banned self-castration, from frustrated members, but, if memory serves, these were not Christian.

Some sects did allow its members to have relations with sacred prostitutes. Depending on Jesus’ early religious life, especially in twenties (unknown), it is feasible he was not a virgin, however, it is very unlikely that he was ever married (sorry, Dan Brown).

In the early Christian church, widows were discouraged from remarrying, so the estates would pass to the Church, to the extent, it became a problem for Roman civil authorities.

Hi Oliver,

You read some interesting things. You mentioned that widows were discouraged from remarrying. The same was true of Bishops. Paul in giving a list of requirements for them said that they could only marry one woman.

Thanks for the interest in the topics.

Hi mjpb,

Thanks. I too have learned from Foxy, yourself and others.

Just some more recent information.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2771786.htm
http://www.javno.com/en-world/vatican-confirms-talks-on-irish-abuse-report_285177
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/12/12/exclusive-irish-pervert-priest-new-life-running-b-b-in-st-andrews-86908-21891716/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jR94k4OOJtYkyOI4bdJedhI0apDQ
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/142713/Catholic-chiefs-shielded-paedophile-priests-from-law
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/john-cooney-oldstyle-secretive-church-must-be-given-the-last-rites-1973728.html

It might be better to organise those links for more clarity.

The first link (in my reordering) is another reference to the report which found a cover up by state officials of sex crimes in the Church:

"A number of very senior members of the Gardai (police), including the Commissioner in 1960, clearly regarded priests as being outside their remit."

Certain Church officials also failed their duty to the victims to ensure that the criminals were brought to justice. Getting a specific mention were:

"Four archbishops – John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973, Dermot Ryan who died in 1984, Kevin McNamara who died in 1987, and retired Cardinal Desmond Connell – all failed to hand over information on abuse"

It wasn't until 1995 that Cardinal Connell gave the files to the police. From the above paragraph presumably that wasn't an immediate action for him as he was shamed for his (earlier) inaction.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/142713/Catholic-chiefs-shielded-paedophile-priests-from-law

Archbishop comes down on Bishop who had mishandled sex cases. Bishop appears unrepentant in article.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jR94k4OOJtYkyOI4bdJedhI0apDQ
An opinion piece relating to the report which doesn't seem to put information together coherently.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/john-cooney-oldstyle-secretive-church-must-be-given-the-last-rites-1973728.html
Archbishop then takes his victory graciously when Bishop 'resigns'
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/bishop-murray-did-the-right-thing-says-archbishop-martin-438687.html

Media 'concerned' about lack of apology resulting from report. "The Irish foreign minister told RTE on Sunday he was - deeply disappointed that we have not had a comprehensive statement from the Vatican or indeed from the pope."
http://www.javno.com/en-world/vatican-confirms-talks-on-irish-abuse-report_285177
The next day the papal envoy apologises and "Ireland's top two Catholic churchmen, primate of all-Ireland Cardinal Sean Brady and Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, plan to brief the pope on the report in Rome on Friday."
http://www.javno.com/en-world/vatican-envoy-apologises-over-irish-sex-abuse_285346
"On Friday, Pope Benedict apologised again for the actions of some members of the clergy."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2771786.htm
Irish pervert priest located in Scotland. He was one of the worst and got restricted and suspended from about 83 and defrocked in 1992. He fled the Ireland when it looked like the law would catch up with him.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/12/12/exclusive-irish-pervert-priest-new-life-running-b-b-in-st-andrews-86908-21891716/

More Bishops resign:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1225/abuse.html