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

Tinnitus, I agree that everyone has a right to criticise the Catholic church if their criticism is informed, ie. if they have thoroughly investigated what they are talking about and are not just coming out with generalised random cliches. It is just my experience of mumsnet that a lot of people seem to want to post hate-fuelled anti-catholic bigotry and are not actually interested in reading any of my side of the arguement. Not everyone though, that is why I said only bother to read further if you are not a Catholic basher (I'm sure the catholic bashers wouldn't bother reading it anyway!)

My opinion is that dwelling on this case is very wrong given that Fr Murphy only had a few months left to live, it is hardly a typical case. perhaps it was a mistake for him to take pity on a dying man. The point is that in general the Pope IS trying to improve procedures and make things more transparent.

I almost wrote (HORROR flagellation, abuse) in brackets next to opus dei Tinnitus but thought better of it and decided not to assume that people would take automatic prejudice. Obviously I was wrong to assume that...

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

What part of that is not true?

Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'.

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

And just out of interest Tinnitus can you tell me why exactly you are anti-opus dei (I'm not a member by the way!) I sincerely hope your views of them are not founded SOLELY on those dan Brown books!

The man is in autocratic control of a failing institution. I know it would be a bold move, but why not just decree that total disclosure must occur, sure there would be resistance, but it would shut me up. this notion that we should trust those implicated to clean up the mess is a non starter.

FreddoBaggyMac, It's not optional to obey the law.

In most civilised places preventing the police from knowing about child abuse cases and therefore allowing them to continue would mean arrest and prosecution. Probably having his name added to the sexual offenders list since it assists it to continue. Just like someone keeping watch at the door while the other rapes a child.

Nope. Haven t read Dan Brown.

But they are the right wing traditionalist extreme in a right wing traditionalist organisation. their only motivation is to maintain the churches power and authority. it's a bit like an American Republican using KKK sources to make a point.

"I almost wrote (HORROR flagellation, abuse) in brackets next to opus dei"

So you know the are a bit questionable then?

Freddo: even if one agrees that the Pope did not strictly collude, he DID cover it up by any definition. If say, a nursery head teacher found out that years before her time a former staff member had abused children, should she have forgiven him and let it go because the child abuser was sorry, had lived a solitary life for some years and was dying? No, because this would in fact be illegal and I would say, in addition, that it would be immoral not to take this information to the police. Before you say that the Pope is the head of the church and has a duty and a right to act pastorally and to decide that forgiving this sinner was the correct way to respond, can I just remind you that the Pope is also subject to the law. He cannot claim special circumstances becuase he happens to believe that god will decide in the afterlife what punishment is appropriate. Many people don't believe in this and even if they do, they are subject to the laws of the land which state that citizens have a duty to report crimes. If we follow your logic the pope could leave unpunished all or any crimes he happens to hear about because god will ultimately decide the sinner's fate. It doesn't work that way. But even if it did, surely the horrendous crimes commited by that priest should have seen him defrocked at least? What would it take?

Apart from all of that, what about the children who were abused? Surely they should have at least have had the small satisfaction of a public apology and seeing this man brought to justice at the very least. Surely they should have seen this man defrocked, ill or not, sorry or not. He had the consolation of dying as a priest of the catholic church, knowing he had had been forgiven and allowed to die as one of god's chosen. What comfort was there for the victims?

No, I've just watched 'The Da Vinci code' and I know that presents the view a lot of people have of them.
Onagar, you are probably right. I'm just saying that it is not right to dwell on that one atypical case where perhaps the pope did make a mistake (in taking pity on a dying man). the Pope is a human being and does make mistakes (as do all leaders at one time or another). It is my view that the church does not think itself above the law and would under normal circumstances co-operate with it fully.

Jenny60- surely the point of that case was that the perpetrator of the abuse had been investigated by the proper authorities though?

"It is my view that the church does not think itself above the law and would under normal circumstances co-operate with it fully."

But he was speaking for the church when he told them that normal procedure is to keep it quiet and that his office would enforce that.

Imagine walking into your local nursery staffroom and seeing this sign.

"All child abuse must only be reported to the administrator who will deal with it himself without involving outsiders. Anyone who tells the police will be sacked and blacklisted"

Falafel: yes they had and they had wrongly concluded that the man should not be prosecuted. When the pope became involved he KNEW that the man was guilty. Ergo he should have told the police, just as any normal person would be obliged to tell the police about new evidence or information.

Jenny you may be right that the Pope made a mistake in this particular instance, but my own view is that he should not be condemned and lambasted for taking pity on a dying man. And i'm also trying to say that the case is hardly typical - if that priest had had more than a few months left to live I have no doubt that he would have been brought to justice through legal means. I don't think the Pope was saying that he would be brought to justice in the afterlife, I think he was acknowledging that the abuser was truly sorry for what he had done and decided not to cause him further torment in his last few months of suffering.

I cannot speak for the children he abused, but then neither can you. all I can say is that not everyone who is wronged demands vengeance. De-frocking the priest would obviously not have undone the abuse and I cannot say for sure that it would have brought the victims any satisfaction.

I DO AGREE THAT THE POPE MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE!! But I'm also saying that this case is not typical and in general the Pope is trying to make things more transparent, not cover things up.

I cannot comment on the article from the guardian but will try and find out more. Again, it is a journalist (probably an anti-catholic one) telling us what he thinks the Pope has said. Personally I like to find out what the Pope actually did say before I pass any judgements! i will try to find out a bit more about it before I make any comments, but now have to go and make my children's lunch!

As far as I am aware there was no ban in reporting to the police or civil authorities- the pontifical secret applied only to the internal workings of the Vatican.

And IMO that case is not a good example, as others have said.

this is how I understand that case:

-Priest perpetrates dreadful crime.
-Civil authorities investigate, find no grounds to pursue (for whatever reason, clearly they were wrong)
-Church officials are not satisfied with this and refer matter higher, request laicising of the priest in question and remove him from public ministry in the meantime. Which is surely the right thing to do- how can they force civil authorities to reopen a case?
-Laicisation process is begun, priest writes to Pope requesting forgiveness given that he has only a matter of months to live.
-Pope takes pity on dying sinner and stops the procedures.

Now, clearly, the timescale of all these things happening is questionable, and the Pope may have made a mistake (certainly from a PR perspective) in pardoning this man, but in this case I cannot see why the media are picking up on it so very much with regards to the pope's reaction. Fine, report it as a dreadful example of a depraved individual, but I don't think the church authorities are to blame in this particular case.

Jenny60- where are you getting your information that the Pope KNEW the man was guilty?

How did he KNOW this more than the authorities who investigated in the first instance? Not saying he wasn't, but matters of prosecution are not as clear cut as someone saying 'ah well, I know he is guilty actually,', and the police saying 'brilliant, thanks for that, lets throw him in jail'

Freddo: I read the Hume piece in the Times as well and even he admits in it to the church failing in its duty over many years. He does a good job of explaining the difference bewteen canon and temporal law, but even he doesn't try to explain, excuse or contextualise the pope's actions. The fact remains in any case that canon law is not the law of any land: it has the same status as the law of any religion and thus is subservient to temporal law, in Europe at least.

No, I can't speak for the children, but I can speak for the law, and the pope flouted it: there's no getting away from it. I accept your right to think that he was being kind in taking pity on a dying man but the fact is that he put the wishes of this dying man before both the law and any sense of justice for the victims. I can't speak for the victims, I don't know what may have brought them some comfort, if anything, but the pope didn't even ask them or anyone else who might have known what they might have wanted. He put his own before the children.

Yes, it is probably the case that this is not a typical case, but that doesn't matter. Apart from the fact that as more and more evidence emerges, it seems that cover was was the default position, this case involves the POPE, the head of the church. Even if it isn't typical, it is still illegal and immoral and he has to answer for it.

@ FBM

"I'm also saying that this case is not typical and in general the Pope is trying to make things more transparent, not cover things up."

Sorry but that runs counter to every thing I've heard on this.

You can't see why not Falafel? If it were another organisation (say a school for deaf children for example) and the head of teh Governers decided not to forward the fresh evidence to the Police, because the headmaster who had abused 200 boys in his care was very ill and was sorry for what he'd done, would you think that was okay? Or is it simply because it is not a school but the Catholic Church and not the head of Governors but the Pope we're talking about that it's acceptable on the grounds that the Pope can forgive a sinner?

That's the bit I'm struggling to come to grips with. Almost as if, almost, the Catholic church is above the law. Is that what people are saying?

The pope's mistake was NOT taking pity on a dying, man it was in putting the dying man's comfort before the victims'.

Ladybiscuit- what was the fresh evidence? I have not seen anywhere that there was fresh evidence.

Just have to point out that the Pope cannot in fact forgive a sinner - only God can. it was as a human being that the pope took pity on that priest, not as a god! Being the leader of the church does not make him perfect, it just means he is trying hard to be perfect but will still on ocassion make mistakes.
he did not put the dying mans comfort before the victims. I think you are assuming that the victims were crying out for him to be punished when you do not know that it was the case.
Now I really am going to get back to making lunch for my poor children...

I'm having trouble with Ratzinger's letter in the original latin. The only translation I can find (aside from every news paper in the world) sounds very much like "don't tell anyone or you will be in trouble. We will punish them ourselves if we think it important enough"

For what it says about the way they look at these things the co-signer of the letter has said "In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded'

And let's not forget that we now have documented cases of thousands of abuses that were kept quiet. If the letter meant to say "do report it and prevent it happening again or god will strike you dead" then no one seems to have obeyed it.

If the 'keeping it secret' part of the letter didn't mean 'from the public/police' then who did it mean keep it secret from?

It describes a situation where the abuser already knows. The victim already knows, the local priest already knows and he is obliged to tell Ratzinger's office. So who is left to keep it secret from apart from the police?