JESUS VS THE VATICAN: On Child Abuse and Women Priests

I would like to propose a thought experiment:

Just suppose there was a TV debate tonight between Jesus and the Pope. The topic of the day is: Should ‘child abuse’ and ‘women priests’ both be considered as grave crimes to be punished by excommunication?’

Suppose there is also a ‘worm’ which records, in real time, the reaction of the audience to what Jesus has to say and what the Vatican has to say on these two current issues. What do you think is most likely to happen?

Well, to find out we can first check the record to see what Jesus has had to say about child abuse and compare it to what the Pope says. And, on women priests we can also check their record to see their different viewpoints.

Second, you can imagine how the worm reacts as we track their viewpoints during this debate. When the Pope is in sync with Jesus the worm goes up and when the Pope is out of sync with Jesus the worm goes down. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Why bother? What is the purpose of this thought experiment? Many people are now saying that the Vatican has lost its moral authority because it no longer represents the views of its founder, Jesus. The purpose of this thought experiment is to allow you to do some fresh thinking to see if this is claim is valid.

If you want to have your say on this debate click here:
http://www.schoolofthinking.org/2010/the-worm-and-the-great-debate-jesus-vs-the-vatican/

It is a fantasy, Jesus does not exist the pope is saying nothing and any out come would count for nothing.
What is so dreadful about Women in the church?
Surely child abuse would far out way your dislike of women?

The late blooming of a blue orchid.

How very topically and circumspectly put, Michael. You wouldn't have got away with messing with that in yesteryear, would you? And now you are cracking the forbidden trifecta all at once: politics, religion, and women.

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

And may at least one Bishop be among them.

And thank you in your vicarious role as provider of your comments thread on your site for the oxymoron of the day:

"Thank God I'm an atheist now."

Just too good.

You haven't been reading any of my recent posts by any chance have you, Michael? That little dormant thing in your CV could become activated again you know, and you could be called back to where you would be under the forbidden trifecta once again. That would be interesting, wouldn't it? Especially for someone with a strong Constitution like yours.

Just thinking laterally, old chap. As you would want me to. I quite enjoyed your little thought experiment. I hope you may be enjoying mine. The luck of the lottery to you.

Regarding work on the sabbath, Jesus himself said that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

How many other petty rules and regulations are made much of by those who have no other aptitude?

Has the Vatican cured even one disease?

Has it protected any, like paedophilia?

Case closed. As Corp. Hicks said "nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure".

The relevance of the church is over.

The only question is, should it be made illegal in public places, like smoking?

Rusty

Posted elsewhare by accident......

""jesus" *supposedly* said"

I wouldn't want any body to think that *I* thought a document largely written and heavily edited in the reign of constantine could possibly be as accurate as, say, the observations of Darwin.

Rusty

IN the eyes of some secular judges it is not possible to be a child molester if you are an actor or artist. Pornography is judged as art and raping 13 year old girls receive pardoning. Maybe the Catholic haters should look in their own backyard before sprouting their
prejudices. Unfortunately I think their blind dogmas and hatred prevent them from this.

"Blind dogmas and hatred" exists on ALL sides runner.

You'll find it within many ..... Catholics, atheists, Protestants, Sallies, Muslims, agnostics, pagans, Scientologists, voodoo worshipers, Mormons, Buddhists, heathens, witches and Tony Abbott.

Of course "Julia" is perfect. What a fine specimen.

"Jesus vs the Vatican"?

I hope Jesus doesn't ask the Pope about the Inquisition. But of course like most of the abominations with the Church's history it will be "explained away" , "put in context" and "excused".

I'm afraid Jesus and Christianity have been at odds almost from the beginning.

I agree benq.

Runner, you are dead right on the whole Roman Polanski issue, it was handled appallingly and all those in the industry that supported him should be black banned. There is never an excuse for child sexual assault.

However, The undeniable issue for the church is that as this problem continues to be swept under the carpet it gets bigger. It appears more and more that child abuse in the church is so ingrained that it cannot be stopped by their own systems of accountability and needs to be cleaned out by the law. There is also the issue of the churches moral position, i would never accuse the entertainment industry of having any morals to contradict but the church has made a career of holding up great virtue and then doing the opposite. The crusades, the inquisition, witch burning and on it goes up to today with child abuse. It is not for me to tell them how to reform as i don't support religious organisations on any level but they must do it before they become the problem.

As for the debate, come on they would crucify Jesus for telling the people to be loving and forgiving. Accept your brother for who he is and help those poor boat people. Turn the other cheek over 9/11, and set aside the hateful greed of capitalism and embrace brotherhood and peace. This is the message he had for the world and why they crucified him in the first place. Since then, those that were threatened by him have kept control of the church to make sure this message is used to oppress the masses not help the people.

The debate would never take place because the Pope would not recognise Jesus, just as Pell is unable to recognise the sheer hypocrisy that tumbles from his lips every time he opens them, on anything.

The Pope would deny that Jesus was back, and declare him to be an imposter.

Unless, of course, the very proof we would 'all' agree to.... fit the Shroud over the new Jesus, and if it fitted, hey presto!, it would have to be him.

Surely, the holes would still be there? A quick check by Dr Thomas would fix that one.

As for the protection of the film fellow.... no, he should have been sent back to face the US courts.

But, the woman he raped did seem to express a desire not to have to relive her experiences through the courts again.

Should her life be protected over the desire of the community to extract justice?

Anyone who has read - in the bible, The gospel according to St. Matthews Chapter 23, that Matthew had very little respect for those "Scribes and Pharisees" and if you read through that chapter, you will probably recognise that the Pharisees are many of those hierarchy in the religion, and this could very include the Pope and others.

How perfectly the Pope passes on the teachings of Jesus is the subject of various opinions. However everyone knows that if the Pope debated Jesus he would be out of a job. The crux of it is that people hate the Pope for expounding orthodox Christianity (even though he has no choice) and want to argue that Jesus was a friendly feel good hippy who hung out with sinners in approval of their behaviour and the Pope and any Christians who subscribe to orthodox Christianity are bad and not following Jesus. Whatever! Get over it. Noone can be a Pope and preach current fads in secularism so stop wasting your time.

Runner,

Thank you. As a Catholic I appreciate you pointing these things out because you are one of the few contributors in here with a sense of fairness and justice but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Fingers are firmly planted in the ears of those subscribing to anti-Catholicism. It doesn't matter that many groups publically support paedophiles while the Catholic Church condemns them. It doesn't matter that there have been virtually no problems identified since the 80s. It doesn't matter that the Pope keeps expressing remorse, vowing to sweep the filth and demonstrating his committment to do so. Anti-Catholics want the Church torn down and controlled by the State supposedly so it can be "cleaned out by the law". This is to prevent the (hand on heart) current problems of rampant paedophilia, crusading, inquisitioning and witch burning.

Blimey mjpb... I had no idea the Pope supported witch burning! Still?

I knew the Vatican used to stoke the fires of hate, burning witches and Anglicans alike (well, why not eh? Anglicans were never 'real' Christians were they?) but I had no idea He still supported it.

Nor crusading and inquisitioning (sic).

Still, that's why I sign in to OLO, to learn new things.

Now, mjpb, which 'groups' support paedophiles?

Please name them... where are they... who are they?

I certainly don't recall any poster here supporting them, at all.

mjpb

As you know I am no fan of Catholicism. I do however detest the dishonesty and imbalance of the media when it comes to Catholic bashing. The good voluntary charity work (compared with the secular Government funded work) is very impressive and overlooked by church haters. To pretend that child sexual abuse is more prevalent in the Catholic church than it is in general society is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. The denialist who refuse to acknowledge the clear link between the porn industry and child abuse are dishonest or very naive. I also applaud the Catholic church for its stand against the slaughter of the unborn. They are one of the few groups with the courage of convictions and decency to stand against the barrage of secular dogma. I appreciate your kind words.

Funny enough when I suggest repeat child molesters should be castrated, whether Catholic Priests or artist or community elders those claiming they love these children suddenly much go silent. All people should be treated equally under the law. Just as those who covered up abuse in Catholic and judges and pollies abusing should also be dealt with accordingly.

The Blue Cross,

The Catholic Church never did support witch burning and in Europe were the ones to stop it. It just gets thrown in with other things because there was only one denomination in those days so anything that went wrong is labelled Catholic. As early as the 5th Century it was clearly held by a Synod that anyone accusing a person of being a witch is rejected by the Church until they recant. My understanding is that the first time it flared up the issue was raised at an Inquisition and the governing body held it was a hoax and ordered people not to discuss witches. A later resurgence resulting from a King refusing to abide by the Church's ruling had Friedrich Spee von Langenfield, a Jesuit priest, being instrumental in ending it.

But a recent post used middle ages stuff and other almost exclusively historical bad stuff which the Church (or a tiny proportion in some cases) was to a greater or not at all degree involved with as an excuse for denigrating the Church and taking secular control

"Now, mjpb, which 'groups' support paedophiles?"

Those in the artistic and entertainment industry who protect child molestors. Noone in this thread has supported them. Runner cited it as an example.

Runner,

Thanks.

"Funny enough when I suggest repeat child molesters should be castrated, whether Catholic Priests or artist or community elders those claiming they love these children suddenly much go silent. All people should be treated equally under the law. Just as those who covered up abuse in Catholic and judges and pollies abusing should also be dealt with accordingly."

I read something from a police officer with an interesting idea. He said that child molestors should have part of their anatomy nailed to a heavy object in a wooden barn with a large knife left beside them. The barn is then to be set on fire giving them a choice. That wouldn't be a Christian approach but one can understand why he would suggest it.

mjpb... I confess to knowing nothing of witches, so have resorted to wikipedia for a look to compare your brief account with what it says.

Do read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Early_Modern_Europe_and_North_America

It seems to me that the church was up to its armpits in this. There is too much to cover, so a read is required.

I saw Runners take, I thought you, and he, might have been referring to something more organised than that.

I suppose in a world where people advertise, and others respond to those ads, for a person to cook and eat, there should be no shocks.

I hope there is not some sort of National Rifle Association for 'child sex', with lobbyists and frontmen saying it is just a 'way of life' that needs to be understood, based on some ancient myths and practices passed down through geberation to generation.

Then again, I do live in RARA land where incest seems to be a feature, along with lots of other sex related crimes.

I remember my first essay at uni was on the witch craze in Europe, studying the way history is represented depending on who's writing it - thoroughly interesting it was too. I'll have to dig out some of my old texts.

The Blue Cross,

Yep you are right there does seem to be alot more than I googled last time. Friedrich doesn't get a mention there but he does have his own page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Spee

Poirot,

I didn't see your post before I did mine but I have experienced what you are talking about. It is like two different histories I have encountered. It did surprise me that Father Friedrich is famous for opposing witch burning according to one Wikipedia page but on the witch page he doesn't rate a mention. It is probably a deficiency of the witch page that only one of the two historical versions get a mention.

So from your historical information about the two different versions, on balance, how does the Church come out? Is the whole thing driven by significant sections of the Church or did the Church mainly oppose it? Given the relevant 5th Century opinions general opposition would not surprise me but after reading that Wikipedia article I won't hold my breath.

mjpb,

I'm going to have a rummage through my old texts (if I can locate the ones I'm after) - and see if I can find anything relating to Father Friedrich and church opposition.
Will get back to you on that.

Poirot and others
I was reading in the paper the other day that approximately 200 women each year are still killed in India as witches usually due to greed for property. Most are poorer lower caste women.

That was often the motive even in America and Europe where accusations of witchcraft were motivated by hate, greed or revenge.

It is difficult to accept this sort of thinking goes on, but not hard so understand if fuelled by obsessive religious fervour and hatred.

I've been reading a little of historian Hugh Trevor- Roper's ideas on the witch hunts, and he is of the opinion that they were the work of the medieval Catholic Church, in particular the Dominican friars.

Also found this - a Papal Bull by Pope Innocent VIII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/summis_desiderantes_affectibus

Pelican,

I've heard its quite prevalent in some parts of Africa as well - probably happens in many other places also...superstition and suggestion seem to fit like a hand in a glove.

Getting back to Trevor-Roper...He wrote, "The elements of the craze may be non-Christian, even pre-Christian....may derive from the pagan folklore of the Germanic people. But the weaving together of these various elements into systematic demonology which could supply a social stereotype for persecution was exclusively the work, not of Christianity, but of the Catholic Church. The Greek Orthodox church offers no parallel."
Apparently the craze fluctuated in intensity during the two centuries. Trevor-Roper says that it was taken up by Lutheranism and Calvinism after the Reformation where it had another surge - and then again by the Catholic Church once more before it eventually died down. Also, many of the trials were carried out in secular courts.
Marianne Hester, writing from a feminist perspective, pointed out that: "Only certain women - usually older, lower class, poor and often single or widowed - were directly affected."
She describes it as being termed "heresy" and "...an attempt to eradicate deviance from, and opposition to, the Catholic Church."

Poirot,

Still hanging out for that other opposing view you were talking about but thanks for taking the time to provide the information you produced.

Does the context explain why Trevor-Roper attributed it exclusively to Catholicism not Christians by comparing it with Greek Orthodox in spite of the involvement of Lutherans and Calvinists? Obviously I am thinking: "But aren't the latter 2 denominations also Christians?" Does he give more explanation of that?

I know that there are people who have bios about religions and many other things, there is a vast difference between the average believers who give support help in hospitals and elsewhere and feel the hurt and suffering of the others who may be suffering from some loss or harm, and those who stand on the sideline and critize others because they are of a different faith, but do nothing to prove that they have humility and concern themselves for others who may be in need or even destitute.