to wonder how one could still be a member of the Catholic Church

[winkywinkola]

or any church that has a history of such utter cruelty?

I'm just listening to Radio 4's programme on the mass graves found in Ireland.

I read today that the Pope made some unofficial mention of 2% of priests being paedophiles. So what?

Is there any other institution that constantly ducks and dives to avoid responsibility for the sheer brutality of its actions?

I am aghast.

My sil is ardently Catholic. She and her dd go to church 4 times at the weekend. I've never discussed this with her but I am keen to know how modern Catholics - or those of other religions - reconcile their religion with such seemingly cruel institution.

Provocative? Perhaps.

Carrie, a previous poster (Frozen) said this:

"The only way anyone sends any sort of message to the Church about their views on anything is to get involved and to tell Priests or other members of the hierarchy or to write, ideally to the Pope."

I was merely, therefore asking the question of two of the Catholics on this thread whether they have done so. Your answer suggests that even if four million Catholics wrote to the Pope, it would make no difference. And if that is the case, I find that rather troubling.

For what it's worth, and I've said this before, I do think Pope Francis is the best thing that has happened to the Catholic Church in decades as he seems to be a genuinely wise, forward-thinking and humble individual.

Notnew I am not saying four million letters would make no difference I think they would distract him from the task in hand.

I too think he is a good thing for the church and he is one of the reasons I am still in it.

Hakluyt - I think they have made significant steps (i) abuse used to be handled on a Diocese ( possibly national) basis now all reports go to Rome. (ii) Safeguarding has been set up and implemented in all ( I hope) parishes. (iii) Pope Francis has met survivors and issued an apology.

There is more to be done for sure. The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago the next best time is now. I would agree most of these things should have been done much much sooner.

There are many in the church today like Archbishop Martin who I quoted below who think very differently to the old guard I place my hopes on them.

I do worry about the explosion of Paedophillia as a result of the internet as evidenced by this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28326128 I worry that we are so busy looking at the past that we might miss the present crisis.

Hakluyt, why don't you stop wondering about Catholics, and other people who aren't you, and harassing individual posters to do things (as you have done on other threads, often with quite a patronising though point-missing manner), and look after your own half acre.

I am not Catholic by the way (in the interests of full disclosure)

but I think that, on the whole, the laity of pretty much any and all Christian congregations (and other religions for that matter) are probably, as a class, a fare stronger force for good and social justice in this country, than general-secular-nothingy-agnostics who like to complain about the Catholic church and religion in general

(in fact there are statistics which bear this out)

I love, love loved the Bishop of Dublin speech / letter (?) that Carrie posted above - I had misgivings about some of it - but the wholehearted acceptance of personal and collective responsibility really struck a chord with me.

And that - in general - is what I don't see in whiny finger-pointing agnostics.

@harassing individual posters.........

Where I had misgivings is in the message that seemed to be saying that the church - the people of the church - need to take responsibility for healing victims, rather than outside agencies. If I were a victim, I would be running a mile from the people who were a part of the institution that abused me. Maybe some wouldn't. Yes the church needs to take respsonsibility but it needs to outsource a lot of actual care, I think.

allhailqueenmab - this a public forum. The question posed by the OP specifically mentions the Catholic Church although in the full posting they also say "or any church that has a history of such utter cruelty". Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for those of us who aren't Catholic to ask what those who are Catholic feel about their church, what it has done, and what they themselves have done about it.

Who put you in charge of this thread? God Almighty?

I can understand that Catholics can be very upset about attacks on their Church. But you also have to understand that there is no other church that has had their wealth, power and influence throughout history nor committed such "utter cruelty" (remember the Inquisition?).

Some of the postings from Catholics have been tempered, well reasoned, well expressed and those responses go a long way to help those of us who are from other faiths or have no faith to understand why they remain in the church. Your attacks don't help.

"Mrs Pot- might I introduce you to Miss Kettle?"

NotNew, sure it is a reasonable OP. It is a reasonable question to ask how Catholics feel about it all, but it isn't reasonable to put them on the back foot in the hectoringly Paxman like way of asking them "have you written to the pope? have you? Have you? Can you make account of yourself to me?" Who put Hakluyt in charge?

I don't know if we know anything at all about H, I dimly remember learning a few things on another thread, but I do keep seeing (and experiencing) her going on threads, saying nothing about her own personal circumstances, and harassing people who have said stuff about their own circumstances, claiming some sort of high ground for some utterly spurious reason. It is a modus operandi that I find very tiresome and ultimately unproductive, because it does not add any understanding to the question of "how do you, as a Catholic, reconcile your feelings and spiritual practice with the failings of the church?" (or any other question) but is just barking boring, closed questions at people who are under no obligation to answer and will probably clam up and say nothing interesting at all as a result.

And it is the asymmetry of this that bothers me. As Catholics or Christians or as member of any other religion, certain individuals have made a commitment to examining their own consciences. IT doesn't put Hakluyt or anyone else in charge of their conscience, and this barking of questions by someone who has said nothing about their own commitment to ethical behaviour is bizarrely one sided and utterly unfair. More importantly - very boring, and stylistically and aesthetically very annoying

For those of you interested in the OP as opposed to the bunfight it is worth looking into the stories of priests like Fr Paddy McCafferty who were abused by priests and are now priests campaigning vocally within the church.

I wouldn't want to speak for him but I think the reason he is vocal from within is because he thinks a paedophile free church is worth fighting for and for him to go quietly away just enables the abusers to continue.

Also Fr McGinnity who in his own words was banished to Siberia for reporting abuses in a college. No one believed him he was subsequently proved correct. He remains an active priest despite this great injustice.

No-one would disagree that it's a positive thing that members of the Catholic Church like the Bishop of Dubling and Fr Paddy McCafferty are naming the abuses for what they were and trying to work towards a better future.

However, this is not representative of the Catholic Church's public statements and, more importantly, actions in regards to the abuses that have and are being committed in its name.

The difference between for example the homes, workhouses etc run by the Catholic Church and for example the BBC is that in the latter case, individuals would have been able to make choices about joining and subsequently leaving. Not everyone - abuse is too systematic to just walk away from.

Women who were pregnant out of wedlock, under age and the babies and children of those women, in addition to those children placed in the hands of the Church due to the poverty of their families/social status of having a priest in the family etc had absolutely no option to leave.

These individuals were treated as somehow less than human, and subjected to illegal acts, which the Church has not allowed the CJS to hold to fair account. 'Banished to Siberia' if you like.

Unfortunately, Fr Paddy McCafferty is very far from alone in speaking out against abuse and being ignored. There are millions who have done so, most who never get a voice or criminal justice.

I find it interesting that those who keep telling me that I'm 'missing the point' aren't actually explaining what 'the point' is.

That the Catholic Church systematically overlooked, minimised, protected and detracted attention from the institutional cruelty and abuses committed by some of it's powerful members?

No, I don't think I've missed that, actually.

And in response to the OP, I think I do agree with Hakluyt inasmuch that if one continues to be part of an institution without informing that institution that you disagree with some fundamental actions perpetrated by powerful members (in this instance, protecting child abusers) then you are, by your silence, condoning the abuse.

I think this holds true for abuse in any context btw, not just the Catholic Church.

Sod it - I was the one who started the letters to the Pope thing. I meant it as an example of something someone could do which might have more effect than just not going to Chruch which would have none, not a mandatory requirement for all Catholics before they could attend Church with a clear conscience.

And, as Carrie says, loads is being done on the safeguarding front at a diocese level. Every effort is being made by people, priests and laity, working within the Church to ensure, as far as possible, that this sort of abuse cannot happen again and certainly not be hidden.

But it never will happen again in the same institutional way because people won't stand for it. The blind unquestioning respect Catholics used to have for priests and, to a lesser extent, nuns, certainly in Ireland and possibly in other countries too, just isn't there any more. It was dying away before all the recent revelations and it has disappeared entirely in all but the oldest generation (and possibly also them) since so much has come out.

And in response to the OP, I think I do agree with Hakluyt inasmuch that if one continues to be part of an institution without informing that institution that you disagree with some fundamental actions perpetrated by powerful members (in this instance, protecting child abusers) then you are, by your silence, condoning the abuse.

Many people have explained on this thread over and over again why they cannot just leave the Church. As such, their silence is not condoning anything because it is not an effective choice they are making (and not everyone is silent of course - I am just trying to explain - again - that what you are saying is not correct even
in respect of people who have been personally silent).

This is not the same thing as someone who buys clothes they know are made in a sweat shop effecitvely condoning unethical practices because in that sitation you have a genuine choice to buy your clothes elsewhere from an ethical supplier. As a practising Catholic, you do not have the same choice.

Carrie don't FFS me. The subject matter we are discussing is clear and we need no extra trigger warnings. Unless you want one on every post!

For those who are interested it gives an objective view and terribly painful insight into what devastation just one such " man" has caused. And goes into more detail about the specific cover up. It's heavy hard viewing. But to say it's important is an understatement.

Abuse used to be handled on a Diocese (possibly national) basis now all reports go to Rome

As a non-Catholic I must admit I didn't know that, but I can't help wondering whether a church hierarchy with such a long record of covering up abuse can really be relied on to act effectively now. For example, have the church's (previously secret) records relating to abuse been fully divulged yet?

Please correct me if I'm wrong here - I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs - but isn't it the case that the Curia hold their jobs in the gift of the Pope? I seem to recall speculation that the new Pope Francis might well replace the (possibly implicated?) old Curia with new appointees, but that it remains essentially unchanged?

Hopefully someone can set me straight on this ...

Carrie raised a point I have been musing on today namely the "660" reports and the institutional child abuse now represented by groupings on the internet. I am also old enough to remember when PIE was being taken seriously and publicly promoted (Patricia Hewitt made a better job of explaining the context of this and apologising for it than did Harriet Harman, incidentally). I also saw a policeman on TV today explaining that anyone involved in historic cover-ups of child abuse would require immunity from prosecution. People were, and are, very afraid of this subject. I actually think the Church has made enormous strides in recent years towards dealing with its involvement in the conspiracies of silence. No practising member would see this as a time to desert the Church.

On the side topic of wealth, I never understand accusations against the Church and I believe these come from the place of Puritanism and envy that informs so much English culture. Wealth/assets = Inquisition = child abuse: completely absurd correlations.

NotNew, if we're going back to the Inquisition, then where are the Protestant Church's apologies to our grandparents who were denied work, homes and even basic charitable help on the basis of being Catholic as late as the 1950s? Where's the British crown's apology for rejecting 'Papists'?

You see how ridiculous such comparisons are?

I do think it a little strange that people join a thread like this and then get all offended when their statements are questioned. Surely the opening post would indicate that it's not going to be a fluffy bunny thread........

"Abuse used to be handled on a Diocese (possibly national) basis now all reports go to Rome"

Given Rome's record, forgive me if I do not find this reassuring....

Hakluyt for god sake. If you look at several cases like Fr McCafferty the bishop didn't believe him. The complaint never got to Rome it was buried at that point and thats a story repeated over and over. So until very recently Rome was recieving a very very rose tinted idea of the scale of the situation. When benedict realised what the scale was (IMO) he bolted and handed a very poisoned chalice to poor old Francis.

well thats how I see it anyway.

I haven't suggested that anyone leave the Church frozen(quite the reverse, in fact).

And I could understand why someone who works for a sweatshop doesn't speak up about abuse of workers (most people can't afford to lose a job, despite their moral viewpoint). The same argument doesn't follow for people who choose to remain part of an institution but don't inform that institution in some respect that they deplore the abuses committed in its name.

I tend to think that rose-tinted views are most common on those who choose to keep their rose-tinted spectacles on.

Christina, I don't think I said you did say that, but you did say that by staying without making your views clear you were effectively condoning the bad behaviour. I was explaining why there was no such condoning.

And where was I talking about sweat shop workers? My analogy was with people who buy from companies they know employ people in sweat shops.

I used the analogy of sweatshop workers because they actually can't leave their jobs. This is what you said about the relationship between practising Catholics and their Church.

Obviously, making decisions about where to shop and practising your faith aren't comparable.

I'm sorry, but I find the term 'bad behaviour' extremely trivialising in the context of the thousands of lives which have been ruined by the illegal acts of those in positions of power in the Catholic Church.

I had no intention of trivialising anything and I apologise that it came across that way. I was typing with one hand on a phone and trying to be as brief as possible. I will be more careful in future.