How guilty is the Catholic Church?

[St Disibod]

There has been much on the boards that moved from specifics to this particular debate:
Pope said there is much to criticise the Church!!
Catholic Church to close adoption agencies

Predictably enough, these threads honed in on the subject of clerical child abuse. I thought the matter warranted an airing on its own thread; if for no other reason to allow future threads on the Catholic Church relate to the specifics of those threads instead of becoming a cyclical argument.

There can be no doubting that what happened was horrific. Those priests and members of religious orders who sexually abused children or subjected them to violence are guilty of a most grave offence. This offence is made all the more serious by the special position of trust they held in society, and their own vows as clerics. Those within the Church who covered up are guilty of perverting the course of justice and allowing more children fall victim. Civil, public and representative servants of the state who had information and failed to act are similarly guilty of prolonging the suffering. I don’t think there will be much disagreement on these points.

But the Church has suffered- attendance rates are down, the priest’s role as social leader is greatly diluted, and the Church’s political influence is a very pale shadow to what it once was. None of this is surprising, or necessarily negative even for the Church (many will certainly assert its positive for everyone else). But does the Catholic Church, as it is currently constituted, still deserve a kicking?

It has undergone a considerable change in management- today’s bishops sing off a very different hymn sheet. Though its intake of clerics has reduced one can only assume that these smaller classes are made up of more committed and suitable students for a vocation in the Church. Much stronger provisions are now in place both at the level of protection and at the level of investigation.

Do people actually think that child sex abuse by clerics is still taking place? Is it just a matter of tracking down those who have so far avoided justice? Or is it justified to attack the Catholic Church for what it was, rather than what it is?

Ps: Related issues which I did not think to mention, and which similarly deserve thorough consideration in this debate, are the laundrettes, and the certain infamous educational and healthcare practices that could be cited.

[Cara]

But the Church has suffered- attendance rates are down, the priest’s role as social leader is greatly diluted, and the Church’s political influence is a very pale shadow to what it once was. None of this is surprising, or necessarily negative even for the Church (many will certainly assert its positive for everyone else). But does the Catholic Church, as it is currently constituted, still deserve a kicking?

Are you talking about the Catholic church or the Catholic church in Ireland? On a worldwide scale numbers and attendance are actually increasing, and while I don't doubt there has been a large drop in attendance in the South of Ireland, I cannot see any in my own parish, a similar story in many in the North. Perhaps the decline in attendance is more to do with people becoming more financially stable and the economic boom the South has enjoyed? I can understand those who have suffered because of the Catholic church wanting to give it a kicking as you put it, but it is beyond me why people who do not consider themselves Catholic still moan about it at the first opportunity.

Do people actually think that child sex abuse by clerics is still taking place? Is it just a matter of tracking down those who have so far avoided justice?

It may well be, but the possibility is no more than that of a teacher or social worker abusing a child. There are stringent guidelnes and protection laws in place now to ensure it never happens again, but no one can ever give a 100% guarantee. I'm sure there are people out there who have commited these crimes and avoided justice and hopefully they and those who protected them will get what they deserve, but there are also a huge number of sincere and good people within the Catholic church, both lay and priests, who do not deserve to be forever labelled as child abusers.

[St Disibod]

Are you talking about the Catholic church or the Catholic church in Ireland?

I was only considering the Catholic Church in Ireland. As you point out, on a global scale it is expanding- though at a far slower rate than other Christian sects (which you can largely attribute to the variance in scale) and Islam (which you can’t). But the issue becomes so immense and multi-faceted on a global scale that it is very difficult to take stock. The scandals that rack the Catholic Church in Ireland are very different to those that are currently shaking the Polish Church. Similarly any church’s place in society will vary considerably between poor and rich countries- in the former it will likely take up responsibility for extensive welfare provision while in the latter the state fulfils all but the most peripheral welfare functions. Although linking charity to evangelism is to be discouraged, and the current pope has been vocal in this regard, one cannot deny that a social dependency will swell your audience and soften your image.

Even in wealthy countries the most popular priests are those who provide services to the downtrodden. Just look at Fr Peter McVerry here in Ireland, or Abbé Pierre in France.* However, Priests must provide ministry to the rich as well as the poor. For Priests in the West increasingly it is a middleclass hero that is something to be, and that is not an easy role to step into.

I'm sure there are people out there who have commited these crimes and avoided justice and hopefully they and those who protected them will get what they deserve, but there are also a huge number of sincere and good people within the Catholic church, both lay and priests, who do not deserve to be forever labelled as child abusers.

Indeed, it is the latter point you make to which I am driving. However, the former point is more difficult.

What exactly do "they deserve?" On the issue of the actual abuse, it’s clear-cut. But on the protection and cover-up it is more difficult as it seems few if any laws were broken in that regard. Therefore any sort of punishment falls outside of the realms of the judicial process and into the hands of society- which can easily be characterised as a mob, but that does not set aside the issue either. Should a bishop who moved a known paedophile from parish to parish in the hope of avoiding a scandal be raised up as the public’s villain, or should he be allowed to retire into oblivion? If it is the latter the public will remain justifiably angry, and one cannot be surprised that the entire institution becomes the public’s villain in stead. But should the Church hang out those clergy responsible to dry?

When you pick at it raises a good deal more questions than are typically asked. An old Simpson-ism comes to mind: "shoot them all and let God sort them out."

* - Of course in Northern Ireland the priesthood found a role unique to their environment as community leaders and honest brokers. Perhaps it is not so much that the Southern Church is doing badly, but rather that the Northern Church earned a more prominent position in society through its role in the Troubles.

[White Horse]

I think the Church has a lot to answer for.

Several mistakes were made. There was an open door policy that allowed homosexuals to become priests. Such people are unsuited to working with children.

Secondly, the response to the scandal was to minimise the damage caused rather than address the problem.

Thirdly, the obsession with preventing priests from marrying denies priests a natural pyhsical loving enviroment. This is not conducive to the long-term secure metal state for a large number of priests.

[meriwether]

Homosexuals are not more likely to abuse children.

[secularireland]

There was an open door policy that allowed homosexuals to become priests. Such people are unsuited to working with children.

I have to say that the three posts at the top were, I feel, the beginnings of a decent, thoughtful discussion, and then we get this.

Whitehorse, you have made these claims, or similar, across a number of threads. Homosexuals do not abuse children; Heterosexuals do not abuse children - pedophiles do. This has been explained to you ad nauseam.

[Limerick Lad]

Church attendance seems to be related to the affluence of the society in which it operates. as we've seen here in Ireland as the more educated and affluent the population has become the less place there is for the Church in a lot of peoples lives. Now the Catholic Church has just become an adjunct to many social occasions: weddings, christenings and Holy Communion come to mind where in many cases the sacrament itself is an inconvenience to the really important event of the day the celebrations afterwards which gives many people an opportunity to to display their wealth ostentatiously.

[Twin Towers]

Church attendance seems to be related to the affluence of the society in which it operates. as we've seen here in Ireland as the more educated and affluent the population has become the less place there is for the Church in a lot of peoples lives. Now the Catholic Church has just become an adjunct to many social occasions: weddings, christenings and Holy Communion come to mind where in many cases the sacrament itself is an inconvenience to the really important event of the day the celebrations afterwards which gives many people an opportunity to to display their wealth ostentatiously.

It would be better to say that the Catholic church is at the heart of the most important social occasions of Irish life. Its a club, if you dont choose to be part of it, why knock it? Any other clubs you would like to have a go at? And if you do attend a wedding reception, make sure you show up in your oldest boots and the worst rags you can find, just to be consistent like!

[White Horse]

There was an open door policy that allowed homosexuals to become priests. Such people are unsuited to working with children.

I have to say that the three posts at the top were, I feel, the beginnings of a decent, thoughtful discussion, and then we get this.

Whitehorse, you have made these claims, or similar, across a number of threads. Homosexuals do not abuse children; Heterosexuals do not abuse children - pedophiles do. This has been explained to you ad nauseam.

Since our last discussion of this topic, I have researched the link between homosexuality and paedophilia and have found that there is a clearly defined link.

Reserach shows a high sexual attraction among homosexuals in young teens. In addition, clinical research among paedophiles who abused boys shows a high level of sexual interest in adult males.

If you wish, I can quote the referneces to the clinical documents.

[secularireland]

But the church has suffered: attendance rates are down, the priest’s role as social leader is greatly diluted, and the Church’s political influence is a very pale shadow to what it once was.

I would argue that this is only due in part to the clerical abuse scandals. The population of Irish is more affluent, better educated, and time-poor compared to, let's say, 15 - 20 years ago, and these are also reasons why there might be a decline in religious adherence. I personally think this is, by and large, a good thing, as I think the disadvantages of religion vastly outweigh the advantages.

It has undergone a considerable change in management- today’s bishops sing off a very different hymn sheet.

Though its intake of clerics has reduced one can only assume that these smaller classes are made up of more committed and suitable students for a vocation in the Church. Much stronger provisions are now in place both at the level of protection and at the level of investigation.

Do people actually think that child sex abuse by clerics is still taking place? Is it just a matter of tracking down those who have so far avoided justice? Or is it justified to attack the Catholic Church for what it was, rather than what it is?

I wouldn't say the hymn sheet is verydifferent (the doctrine remains the same), and I only think that the change was made once it was absolutely necessary for the church to make one. There wasn't a great revolution from within; there was condemnation from without.

In the country people pay for heinous crimes by going to prison. Knowingly allowing a pedophile to continue abusing and ruining people's lives is a heinous crime. Therefore, all people involved in the cover-up should have been charged with, at least, "perverting the course of justice". That's justice. Falling attendances, less influence etc. is a horribly inadequate payment, and I think that higher level officials were not properly charged still hurts the church. Also, the church should have been asked to pay more money. The deal they got off Bertie Ahern was a scandal in itself. I can understand the political agenda in not wanting to bankrupt the church, if that is, in fact, what would have happened, but given the systemic nature of the crimes, i think, the system might have deserved to be financially bankrupted.

The system, however, for any thoughtful person, was morally bankrupted.

When the church speaks on any issue of morality someone should stand up and remind people exactly how systematically immoral the church was for decades on the issue of child abuse. The faces may have changed behind the institution but the bishops who speak for it now, who say they speak for their moral God, have no answers when they are asked why this benevolent chap did not speak so lucidly to their forebearers. So, respect is deservedly not given to the church, as far as I'm concerned, and they deserve to be rapped over the head repeatedly with the cudgel of child abuse when they deign to be morally, divinely superior in public and political debate.