Why Catholic ethos and morality didn't prevent abuse of children

[femmefatale]

Bernard Shaw said the only problem with Christianity is that it has never been practiced. In my opinion,it hasn't been practiced because much of its moral code is simply not practical in the real world.

This would excuse what was done rather than condemn it.

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
G. K. Chesterton

[femmefatale]

Agreed. The Christians that can be said to be of strong moral character don't follow it completely. You have to deviate from "turning the other cheek" sometimes in life, otherwise you don't just allow harm to come to yourself but you allow harm to come to those around you.

Jesus preached against an unthinking, illogical, unbendingly strict adherence to religious rules and customs.

"Turn the other cheek" is metaphor.

[garlandgreen]

This would excuse what was done rather than condemn it.

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
G. K. Chesterton

Rahter it would explain what was done and why you should abandon it. The imposition of impossible standards is at it's heart a sadistic motivation

[Demotruk]

This would excuse what was done rather than condemn it.

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
G. K. Chesterton

How does that excuse it? He's not saying they should give up morality and simply protect their own interests...

He's saying that Christianity isn't really a practicable moral code. If you continually turn the other cheek, you will allow bullies to abuse you and those around you.

[Demotruk]

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

That doesn't seem like a metaphor to me...

[Demotruk]

Rahter it would explain what was done and why you should abandon it. The imposition of impossible standards is at it's heart a sadistic motivation

I wouldn't say sadistic. It's noble, but naive.

[hopi watcher]

What's your superior intellectual analysis,Prof Hopi?

This is a forum,not a place of silence,so if you want to observe silence,you should not have come on here. Are you as dogmatic a Catholic as a loony left socialist? Why are you upset by a criticism of the blatantly obvious failure of the Catholic ethos and morality to protect the abused children and of its twisted Catholic puritan sexual morality of the past that regarded the children from broken homes as morally inferior and unworthy of care?

What is pathetic about this thread is that it seeks to exploit the abused to score points.
You can if you wish claim that I am motivated by a desire to defend a faith, but the simple fact is that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the christain faith would never conclude that it was an intrinsic part of that faith that children should be brutalised or that it was ok to do so.
The thread further ignores the very obvous fact that it was the civil authiorty that delivered these childern to the institutions and also it is now common knowledge that those in the civil authority were aware that the conditions wthin these institutions were harsh and cruel yet they stood by and considered that acceptable. The plain fact of the matter is that it is only in recent times that children have become to be seen as people at all. How many children perished stuck up chimneys for example? And my upset has nothing to do with your silly attack on the catholic church it is your attempt to exploit the abused to do it that I find dispicable.
BTW the roots of what happened to these children lies not in any failure of a faith but in the failure to embrace socialist principles when considering the affairs of the people, all the people.

[femmefatale]

Rahter it would explain what was done and why you should abandon it. The imposition of impossible standards is at it's heart a sadistic motivation

Christianity does not try to impose impossible standards and exact punishment for their inevitable breach. It represents an ideal, for which one is to try to aim. The central tenets of Christianity are simple commands which promote love for one another and God. They are not some exhaustive list of proscriptions/punishments. We find Christianity demanding because it can clash with our baser instincts. Those guilty of abuse chose instinct over principle, the expedient over the ideal.

[femmefatale]

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

That doesn't seem like a metaphor to me...

It's partly metaphor. I don't think Jesus meant that we should only literally turn the other cheek when we are literally being stuck. He meant that when somebody offends you, striles out against you (even non-violently), do not offend that person in retribution. Forgive rather than retaliate. Not easy but preferable to the retributory approach.

[garlandgreen]

I wouldn't say sadistic. It's noble, but naive.

I don't think it's naive at all. Noble naivety and sadism can amount to much the same thing when impossible standards are set. Commanding people not to covet for example. Being noble in intent is being sadistic in effect in such circumstances