Catholic church - time to call it a day?

[Chil1234]

I truly hope that the latest scandals and accusations have hit the catholic church hard or preferably killed it stone dead. If it were isolated incidents or if the problems had been handled considerately, it might be put down to the vagiaries of life or the human condition. If other religious organisations had the same breadth of complaints one might make a faith connection. But it isn't the case.

The catholic church's position of absolute authority, of 'doing God's work', and expecting unthinking obedience, has resulted in apalling corruption and terrible abuse..... from the Magdalen Laundries, the Holly Mount Orphanage, the organisations that shipped children off to terrible conditions in Australia to the cover-ups surrounding abusive priests today. People in my own family have been direct victims of 'pastoral care', having their lives ruined when they most needed help. It's not enough to say that the church does a lot of good work or that there are good people in the organisation... that does not compensate for the instutionalised megalomania and abuse of privilege.

When the Pope visits I, for one, will not be there to greet him. Shame on the lot of them

@Dittany thanks will defo join you and thanks for the olive branch,much appreciated

Thanks for responding abride. I'm bloody glad I'm not a Catholic right now - must be damned hard.

Abride - why are you prepared to pay for child protection training?

Because the diocese needs properly trained lay children's liturgy leaders. There's a deficit in our diocese: we actually have more people wanting to take on these roles than we can afford.

I'm contributing to a fund-raising campaign that will do things such as renovate old churches, train priests and lay people, etc.

Our diocese has taken child protection very seriously. It has been very, very stringent for some years now (more stringent than I have encountered in other volunteer positions for a school and a sports club I also help out at). This is obviously good but it has meant I have stopped volunteering at church because work and domestic responsibilities mean I simply can't make all the training courses.

What I'm hoping is that the role of women in the diocese will become so entrenched that a lot of things will change--diocese by diocese. I'm a sceptic Catholic: find some things hard to accept as far as dogma is concerned. But I haven't found a better way to bring up my children to be kind and giving members of their community and to follow in the example of Jesus. That's it, really.

And yes, it's been an awful week. Truly disgusting. But you tend to look at the people closest to you. Our priest is lovely. Yes, he's an elderly man of a generation who have entrenched views about women and what they do. But when we have experienced sad times he has been there for us. And he was very early to stand up in front of the congregation, about five or six years ago, and apologise for what the Catholic church had done. That took guts. Poor man--he hadn't done anything to children. Neither had his immediate superiors. But they are tarred just the same and that is the cross they will have to carry for the rest of their lives: shame and guilt and sorrow for the harm done to children.

My dh is a practising catholic so I've been on the edge of the environment for a very long time.

I find it hard as a female as it doesn't recognise me and particularly as I'm not catholic - 10 weeks marriage course at the church and I'd hoped to learn something about the faith, the marriage vows and what it all meant - in that time I didn't hear the word god or Jesus at all, all the non catholics were pretty much ignored by the priest to the point where it started to divide the catholics and non catholics. Instead we had 10 weeks of how women were victims of mens' violence, how men were victims of womens' greed and how women had sex with animals (I kid you not). I got the words given to me on the day and read them from the card but was constantly inturrupted by the very drunk priest who asked me if I knew what fidelity was as I was reading - bloody humiliating as I'm not a catholic and am a foreigner to boot. My verdict - exclusive and excluding.

I feel the Catholic church administration is one big corporate multinational - it acts like one - abuse cover ups, skirting around the issues by secrecy, intimidation and payoffs.

I see very little spirituality - and it appears to be more a culture than a religion to me (as a proper outsider) - a neo conservative one. And I think that's why lots of non catholics find it hard to understand why catholics are so defensive of the Church.

However dh is one and that's fine by me - he has said for a long time that he doesn't need the church or a priest to validate his belief. But there's no way I'm going to let dh and his family have ds baptised - having said that I'd be happy for him to be introduced to the Church as a way of connecting to his christian background as long as I'm there - always.

Pius IX was pope in the 19th century, not the 4th.

The pope is understood as speaking infallibly only when he is defining a teaching concerning Faith or Morals, "in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher", or ex cathedra ("from the chair of Peter"). He does not choose when he is infallible upon a whim; he is infallible whenever he meets the defined conditions, and he is certainly not held up to be impeccable (without sin).

Neither is the Pope viewed as "King of kings"; that is a position which only Christ Himself holds. The Vatican's power over individual bishops is limited; the hierarchy of the Church is not dictatorial. Even if the Pope knows and recognizes a problem, he does not have the power to sort out all the problems of the Church himself any more than a head of state could single-handedly resolve all the problems of his or her country.

The Catholic Church has never claimed that the Pope is infallible in all circumstances, nor has it ever asked Catholics to follow blindly without questioning its precepts.
In fact, quite the opposite, which is why the Catholic Church and its followers have founded almost every major institution of higher learning in Western Europe.
Valid and informed criticism of the Church is a good thing and has indeed led to numerous reforms of problems that have arisen; those led by St. Francis, St. Catherine of Sienna, and St. Philip Neri are just a few examples.

Problems will arise, as this institution, like all institutions, will inevitably be comprised of fallible and peccable human beings. And saints will also arise, and have arisen, to counter scandal and corruption. Since its inception, the Church has had to deal with scandal and corruption, yet responded to it and flourished (and, in fact, continues to grow in numbers) as a result.

The Church doctrine on Mary mentions absoluetely nothing about her hymen. However, it has presented her, a woman, as the highest of created beings, the most deserving human person of our respect and love. Many other women throughout history have been recognised as saints and doctors of the Church, including political leaders and intellectuals (St. Catherine of Sienna actually confronted the pope directly with the scandal of her day and was a key player in resolving the issue; St. Hilde, St. Margaret of Scotland, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Helen - just to name a very few). This is a far cry from hatred of or negativity towards women.

It sounds as if people are reading second hand articles and misinformed sources rather than Church documents. There are numerous errors in the above postings as far as recounting actual Catholic teaching and Church History.

Pedophilia and covering it up are both unquestionably wrong, as taught by the Catholic Church itself; however, much of what is written here displays ignorance, bigotry and predjudice of a disturbing proportion.

England holds itself up as being a land of tolerance and respect; if this is so,
whether or not you choose to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, if you want to have an intelligent discussion about it and make valid criticisms of the institution (rather than simply ranting hatefully), you should be informed of what the Catholic Church actually teaches rather than what a particular priest, layperson, or journalist claims.

A good place to start would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church, widely available at book shops and online for free. I recommend reading it in its totality rather than pulling quotes out of context, as one should do when conducting any sort of research.

Interesting, but you lost me at the point you suggested church documents should be trusted rather than "misinformed sources". You might get the feeling that some people here don't trust the church or their view of their role in world history, and you'd be right.

You have clearly read most of the thread (well done, it is getting on a bit.) so no need to go over the inquisition, misogyny, wholesale slaughter of Cathars, or the popes historical insistence on his seniority to other kings (king of kings). the OP was after all about the current incumbents suitability. Sorry but his role was not that of remote head of state, removed from the issue. He intervened directly to cover up serious crimes both past and future. and for that, He should pay the price.

Defend the church by all means. They are likely to need your help soon. but Mr Ratzinger is indefensible.

I apologizes, got my facts wrong.

In the 4th century the idea came to prominence that Mary's hymen had remained intact .... when the autocratic Pope Pius IX endorsed the dogma of 'immaculate conception' as the opening gambit in his move towards 'papal infallibility'.

Yes, Tinnitus, you have got a lot very wrong, as that dreck you quoted clearly shows. There's a big difference between fact and (old) anti-Catholic opinions.

Excellent post Caramelcream.

Another scathing and erudite commentary by Ms Dowd on the subject.

It's the kind of defensive, authoritarian, how-dare-you-criticise-us attitude that I see in some of the more recent posts that has allowed the Catholic church to escape scrutiny and allowed abusers and their enablers to escape justice.

This is not merely an old cover-up, it is ongoing. Tens of thousands of children have been abused. The Pope has not confessed to his own wrong-doing, merely blamed the Irish RC church. The Pope has not agreed to hand over criminals to the police. Instead his minions are on the attack, busy blaming journalists for daring to cover this story.

The victims here are the children who were tortured and abused and threatened with excommunication if they spoke out. NOT the Pope or the Catholic hierarchy.

edam - v true. As a Catholic I would really like an independant investigation and then clear guidance produced by an independant outside body in conjunction with the Vatican to state guidance for dealing with any accusations in the future in a transparent way.

Sorry methanxiety, but If you are going to group sources in to "fact" and "anti Catholic" then you really shouldn't expect me to answer you.

@ Edam

Thank you for trying to get back to OP. But I don't fancy your chances. To many posters here want to obfuscate about other side issues, it seems child abuse doesn't feature as highly on their radar.

Good idea essence, sadly can't see it happening.

Tinnitus, you are right there. Obfuscation is the refuge of those unwilling to admit wrong-doing, of course.

There already has been an independent enquiry, by Lord Nolan, ten years ago. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1540446/Lord-Nolan.html Apparently Nolan was happy that his recommendations were acted upon.

Another committee, headed by Baroness CUmberlege, then reviewed the situation. www.cumberlegecommission.org.uk/

OBviously this took place in England. Don't know what happpened in other countries.

And here is a list of people on the committee. As you'll see, they include child protection and crime prevention experts and senior social workers, along with Dame Butler-SLoss.

www.cumberlegecommission.org.uk/

And here is the NSPCC response to the Cumberlege Committee itself.

66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:mPjHzh-EXPIJ:www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/Consultation s/2006/Consultation2006CumberlegeCommissionwdf48611.doc+responses+to+the+Cumberlege+Commission&cd= 1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

As you'll, the NSPCC response is primarily positive, though it identified some areas where it thought more work should be done.

Sorry, that link looks a bit clunky--hope it works.

SOrry, also for bombarding you with links, but I think it's only equitable that this stuff is noted and that people are aware this process started in England more than a decade ago now.

What Dittany said.

And we've learnt a whole lot more in the past ten years about the scale of child abuse in the Catholic church AND the scale of the cover up.

Time for an world-wide investigation that goes right to the very top IMO. The bastards abused children or enabled abusers in five continents, they should be held to account in five continents.

If you think it's just me, watch this.

India Knight's article in today's Sunday Times pretty much sums up how I hope I'd react if I were Catholic

India's was a peculiar article.
She says that a priest at her church was accused and cleared of abuse so she won't let her child go there. But he was cleared? WOuld she act similarly if the local school teacher or scout leader was accused and cleared? Presumably by the police, as dioceses are obliged to do following NOlan?

She says the child would be 'alone' with the priest. Nope. That would never happen. All First Holy Comm. training is done by lay people who've been on more child protection courses than you can imagine.

Suppose it makes an easy column though.

I liked her article.
It sums up how I feel as a catholic at the moment
The last straw really

I suppose it depends on whether he was cleared by the Church or the police. If it were the former I don't think I'd be terribly confident either. And I find this robust denial that no child would ever be alone with a priest utterly bizarre. I'm not questioning the practice, just the assumption that you can't trust a priest not to abuse children.

Tinnitus, a 'source' is not the eye-rolling- ridicule-masquerading-as-thought/research/argument regarding the place of Mary in the Church that you linked to. Edam, nobody is saying the Catholic Church cannot be criticised or that it should not be criticised; it would be refreshing to see less casting around of old anti-Catholic prejudice and more respect for facts about certain aspects of church history, doctrine and teachings.

It's neither defensive nor authoritarian to state that certain posters have simply got a lot of their facts about Church doctrine or history flat out wrong. Nobody is denying that Catholic priests and nuns committed crimes against children, and nobody is denying that these crimes were covered up, that the institutional Church was protected and generations of children thrown under the bus in order to do so.

Tinnitus, I was considering asking MN to delete you last link, but now I think everyone should see it, hear it, and judge for themselves as to its content and the rage this silly man feels. I have personally never come across such an offensive piece of utter crap in my life, equal hateful of Jews, Catholics, and Muslims if you listen all the way through, and filled with nasty untruths and smug self-satisfaction. If this is the kind of hate-filled rant that you consider to be an argument or a source, then I think I'm wasting my time here.