How can anyone still follow the Catholic Church ?

[LadyBlaBlah]

I am not an alarmist, but really, after the way they have treated their children, how can we take their religion seriously?

There are so many other points, but in summary, what a total disaster they are.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8381119.stm

When I studied the history of the Catholic church at university I am sure my Catholic lecturer would have that exact link. The fact that I can;t remember the exact words is evidence of the fact that it is not a shocking statement.

When I have taught in Catholic schools I have always explained that the Roman Empire chose to adopt Christianity because it suited their political purposes.

Because I do not see the church as simply just an extension of the Roman Empire,

what a stupid title.

Morosky was right to say she is part of the church. That is what churchgoers are told all the time: that the church is not just the priests and the hierarchy, but every person who has been baptised into the church.

I am not a practicing Catholic and I do not condone what was done by some (many, if you will) priests. But I also do not wish to see the church and all its people tarred with the same brush.

blah blah you are full of stupid comments aren't you ?
if it was an organisation... ummm no. dr shipman. but we don't all think all doctors are, do we ?

I didn't mean you Morosky - I thought your post was very measured.

I would like to think that if I were Catholic (I'm sure it's fairly obvious that I am not) then I would be banging on the door of my local priest, wanting to know what steps the Church were putting in place to prevent this kind of atrocity and cover up going on ever again.

ImSoNotTelling - there was indeed widespread child abuse in children's homes in the past. The difference here is that when stuff like that has happened, public enquiries are instigated, procedures are revised and stringent efforts are made to prevent systematic abuse happening again. What exactly is the Catholic church doing? Burying its head in the sand by the looks of things

Yes that is horrendous dittany.

There have been many horrendous popes in the history of the Catholic church, though sometimes I can't help feeling the criticisms of non-Catholics are slightly invalid (I don't mean you, I mean some criticisms I have heard made by non-Catholics of John Paul the second).

But even if corruption occurs at the very top of an organisation, it does not mean that the whole organisation is corrupt.

Popes come and go.

oblomov - difference is the leaders of the medical profession don't instruct doctors to hide evidence of abuse, don't obstruct investigations, don't try to silence victims, don't collude in a cover up.

Okay, so pockets of corruption exist. And collusion and cover ups. What are you (as members of this Church) going to do about it? I'm really not trying to be provocative but if it were my Church, I'd be asking some pretty hard questions.

Sorry phone rang

Obviously as a Roman Catholic I am not going to agree with you that the Catholic church is simply a political power.

Roman Catholicism or Christianity needed the Roman Empire, it did turn a blind eye to Constantine and later emperors blending Christian beliefs with their own paganistic beliefs. I think that is where our love of saints comes from tbh, the "reverance of Mary and some would say the Commnion service. The first Bishops of Rome may have been men of faith, but they were also political appointments.

I do think that any basic school history book will say that the Roman Empire contined in the form of the Roman Catholic church.

I do think that the Catholic church has an unfortunate political empire building past. In the past the line between religion and politics was a blurred one.

I think lots of Catholics have asked questions and we are angry. I am not pretending it is an individal problem, I want to know as much as you, if not more, how this has been allowed to happen.

I think there are also deep theological problems.

I am a catholic who has stood up in church in meetings and directly challenged what I see and am taught.

My friend began training as a priest but became so disillusioned by the number of priests who propositioned him that he gave up. He says abuse covers-up were so common that it was regarded by some as free pass to do what they liked. He now refuses to have anything to do with the church and is happily gay and feels free.

'It has laid bare a culture of concealment where church leaders prioritised the protection of their own institution above that of vulnerable children in their care. '

I think we will hear a lot more from victims who as children did not believe they had the right to speak out.
I was bought up as a catholic and a local prest, highly thought of, was 'moved' to a diiferent parish because of child abuse.

I think that the news coverage today has been very 'weak'. The idea of a 'cover up' is strong, but what has been covered up has not really been mentioned, apart from under the broad umbrella of 'abuse'. I think the Church is still getting off lightly .

Like Morosky, I am a Catholic with no justification and no sympathy for what has happened. I feel anger, and shame, and this issue has brought me to the point of leaving my church more than once. You shouldn't think that Catholics, who undoubtedly view themselves as part of the church, are asking no questions.

I'm glad to hear that TFM. Some of the posts earlier seemed to suggest that it was such a minor problem that the 'fuss' about it was entirely out of proportion.

Oblomov - I hope you got the point from Edam. It is a very different thing to your example. To use your example, we would (hopefully) lose faith in doctors should we discover that people who are responsible for supervising, organising and setting standards for doctors, such as the BMA, knew what Shipman was doing and decided to cover up for him thus allowing it to happen more, or perhaps shuffling him along to another practice to 'calm things down'. It is a very different situation.

I agree that the church got off lightly again. There is no other organisation on the planet who could get away with this and people still defend them. And the question remains - what does the Pope have to say about all of this? Does he really have nothing to say about it ?

I class myself as a recovering Roman Catholic, and I can't actually trust myself to write what I really think about this: suffice to say, at least I feel I'm in good company in criticising the Church of Rome.

I don't think anyone has said it is a minor problem and if they do I would certainly distance myself from them.

I think what people were saying is that it is wrong to say a whole church is corrupt to the core. A church is a commnunity of believers not just the hierarchy.

As a Catholic I have a problem with the hierarchy and as someone who has a strained relationship with my church I too have found this hard and do not understand why this has been allowed to happen.

"I think what people were saying is that it is wrong to say a whole church is corrupt to the core. A church is a commnunity of believers not just the hierarchy."

But isn't the notion of hierarchy extremely important to the Roman Catholic Church? In fact isn't the hierarchical organisation meant to be a divine institution?

This isn't just a case of a few bad apples, which with humans being human is an unfortunate reality.

Rather this divinely inspired and approved hierarchy systematically covered up serious crimes right the way up to the Vatican who ignored requests from the Irish investigators for information.

I'm not saying that the whole thing is rotten.

However to ignore asking some very serious questions about that hierarchy and to not apportion the correct amount of blame to it, saying it was all just the fault of a few bad people, is wrong.

Quite right, Dittany. God rest my Gran but I'm so glad she's not here to see this.