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

Does anyone else think this is going to lead to physical attacks on priests? for some people it's any excuse.

Child abuse is wrong and the perpetrators should be dealt with in the proper way regardless of their occupation; no question about it, but not every Catholic priest is a bad person ~ I didn't meet one as a child and I spent so much time with them it was unbelievable!

You can't tar all priests with the same brush and you can't say the Catholic church is all bad ~ it's not.

That has been the case in England for some years now, Anniek. If anyone is suspected in our diocese, the person who has concerns is told to contact either the police and/or the (lay) child protection officer.

It isn't true though Dittany as several posters have pointed out.

Have to admit I can't be fagged to read the rest of the thread.

No. Any moment now someone will bring up the Inquisition...

Fair enough. the man is a former member of the Hitler youth despite coming from a liberal family and it not being compulsory. He then became a priest and rose to head the modern day inquisition, and to call for its reintroduction as a means of rooting out heresy. now he is the pope and has been caught out not just covering up abuse claims but demanding that others do likewise.

I'm sure he loves his dog.

I know this is a serious discussion, but at 'ratzi the nazi'.

Oh, and AFAIK he left a liberal, non-Nazi family to join the Hitler Youth, which I thought was not compulsory (although very heavily encouraged, and under the Nazi party that might be the same thing in effect...)

As you were

I suppose one of the problems the churches have (its not just the Catholic church, though its authoritarian nature exacerbates matters) is that the core of the Christian message is forgiveness and redemption for the vilest of sinners.

It sounds like such a nice idea but the notion of an ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card probably has deleterious effects on some individuals morality in practice. And its the only 'logic' I can think of for the offending priests not being excommunicated

"Exactly what he was when a lad, whether he believed in the Reich or was just following orders is a smelly red herring."

Well it does demonstrate that the man has had a certain moral flexibility when it comes to his own survival and general lifestyle.

Which, I should add, is very human and doesn't make him unique.

However it's not as if we're dealing with a Pope who has a superhuman record of putting right and wrong above day to day practicalities.

This coversation has gone really weird.

"Look, we know he's a paedophile-sanctioning, misogynist, homophobic bigot who tells people in AIDS-riven countries that condoms are permeous (sp?)...

...but there's no way he's a Nazi!"

Surely the known crimes are enough?

The fact is he never apologized for his association with the Hitler youth. He never apologized for the former atrocities of the institution he used to head and now he caps it all by his actions in this case.

If i'm being unfair to the man please tell me how.

Surely the known crimes are enough?

thats what I meant.

'HJ membership was made compulsory for youths over 17 in 1939, and for all over the age of 10 in 1941.'

The above comes from a Jewish site, so I guess we can excuse them of any bias in Ratz's favour.

Archbishop of Chicago Paul Marcinkus was his name and yes Dittany you are right Ratzinger was the "Enforcer" Marcinkus was the "hired heavy" and a very dubious character IMO.

To some of you on this thread who think that all Catholics should take a tiny portion of blame (or at least condemnation)
I resent that! I may call myself a Catholic and not a proud Catholic to boot, I question a lot about the Vatican and I find them wanting. But I am not going to scurry into a corner and become an object of scorn and villification and neither do I want to preach from the roof tops and try and convert people to my religious views. But I feel entitled to take a lot of what I see as the good elements of the Catholic Church and hold them dear to my heart. That does not make me an apologist for the Vatican or the Clergy in any way. There is nothing bad in cherry picking the best bits from other faiths, religions as well assecular and pagan philosophies and I stand by my right to do so, and that does not make a a "bad" Catholic or a "Catholic" who is a bad person1

The church hierarchy has shown itself culpable, as obviously are individual offenders. That does not make all the followers or even all the priests guilty by association.

Bernadette, I sincerely hope that good people within the Catholic church can alter it from within.

born Joseph Alois Ratzinger on 16 April 1927

In the 1996 book ?Salt of the Earth?, the Pope told Peter Seewald, a German journalist: ?At first we weren?t, but when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in 1941, my brother was obliged to join. I was still too young, but later, as a seminarian, I was registered in the HY. As soon as I was out of the seminary I never went back.?

Check out the maths, if abrides info is right then he wasn't to young in '41. he was 14.

so who is wrong?

"The church hierarchy has shown itself culpable, as obviously are individual offenders. That does not make all the followers or even all the priests guilty by association."

The allegations seem to be that right to the very top the Roman Catholic Church was complicit in covering up child abuse and allowing the offenders to re-offend.

If you support that organisation and/or help to fund it via donations then while you may not be "guilty by association" you do have to question what part you've played in empowering the organisation to do what it did and also what part you might play in what ever it does in future.

I genuinely don't know what I would do in such a situation.

I know that I would feel awful that I empowered this organisation to betray the victims and also my own trust in them.

I would probably regret giving my support and donations.

@ bernadetteoflourdes

Sorry but that dose make you a heathen in the eyes of the Vatican and definitely NOT a catholic. Total adherence to all doctrine and dogma is the only way you can be a catholic.

Personally i think your openness to other faiths is a good thing and a hint of the cracks in the Vatican.

Here's a fun editorial by Maureen Dowd on how a battle is waged in American Catholicism between the nuns and priests.

I am in agreement with those who believe there is something institutionally wrong and misogynist about the Catholic church, and that it's not just an issue of a few individuals behaving abhorrently.

That said, the institution of Catholicism is only one facet of the enormously rich historical, theological and cultural significance of the Catholic church. Reform is needed, such as going back to the Orthodox tradition of allowing for married priest, but it is something worth reforming.

Although it doesn't seem that the Vatican is using this as a platform to launch serious reform.

I agree Badger.

I feel sorry for the people in this position, and hope that they can find their voice to change from within. I think that is more likely if they don't find themselves unfairly vilified from the outside.

Zazizoma excellent remark and says everything I feel about the Catholic Church. @ Tinnitus I think I am defo an early 12th century pre-Crusades type of Catholic. When the early Universites were flourishing and religious tolerance thrived. Particular heroes were Peter Abelard and St Thomas Acquinas. The Muslims are totally right the Christian Crusades were the beginning of the rot and that bastard Innocent 111rd preached them as a distraction from the rising popularity of St Francis of Assisi oh and it was a good excuse for a land grab too. The masses were already questioning the Pope's authority, the corruption of the church etc etc and were crying out for reform even in those days! Nothing like have a good war to detract from your critics is there.

"I don't think ordinary catholics need to take the blame for this scandal in the slightest."

Blame is wrong, but they must feel some level of guilt and betrayal.

As a comparison imagine a passionate anti-Iraq war person who was a member of the Labour Party and voted for them at every election.

They're not guilty for what happened.

However they must have some level of culpability for supporting and empowering the people who then went on to take those dodgy decisions that lead up to the invasion.

They can't just wash their hands and say "nothing to do with me".

But in turn what can they do?

Should they work within the party to change it?

Or should they believe that the corruption is so deeply ingrained that their only option is to withdraw their support and leave?

I view it similarly with Catholics.

Guiltless, betrayed, unable to wash their hands of the whole affair and facing some very awkward decisions about what to do in the future.