how to make sense of catholicism /the child abuse scandals - sorry to raise topic

[mamatilly]

I am really struggling with this and wonder if any wise mumsnetters have any opinions - I just cannot understand how in the light of so many many stories of child suffering at the hands of priests (and nuns) so many people can continue to suppport Rome, and come out in their thousands to see a Pope who apparently had full knowledge for many decades...

Would it not be possible for all followers to simply cut loose from Rome and start over, without a single person from the Catholic hierarchy...

Sorry to raise this at this time, I would love to make sense of it somehow.

But surely it is equally not for the RC church to condemn condoms, or spread untrue information about them? If they just never mentioned the things at all, then fair enough, but they go out of their way to tell people that condoms don't stop the transmission of HIV, which is totally untrue.

They could say "well, yes they stop the transmission of HIV but you still should keep it in your pants" if that's what they believe.

exactly, AMIS- the CC campaigns against condoms, spreading mistruths about their effectiveness at spreading disease and preventing pregnancy. in countries with majority CC belief, that is unbelievably irresponsible.

I agree, I don't believe the church should comment on them at all... and I think generally it tries not to unless backed into a corner. There are well reported exceptions made by people who might not have got their facts right, and I do not support them. The Church and Pope's only view is sex within marriage only and whether condoms work or not does not come into it.

it comes into it. how could it not?

it seems to me you have your head in the sand.

I haven't! I'm just saying that it is not the job of the Catholic church to teach about contraception, which it does not condone in the first place!!! Can you not see my point? The Church does not approve of condoms and how effectively they work is irrelevany to that. I think it is perfectly right for other organisations to teach people about condoms... why does it have to be the Catholic church????

I do agree with you that Church officials should not be giving out false information and I believe that any individual that has done so would not be backed up by the church as a whole. It's a real shame that a few people have put that message across as it really confuses the whole message which is no sex outside marriage!

I meant 'Irrelevant' not 'irrelevany'

This is such a complex issue but most people form their opinions based on salacious headlines.

I think one of the underlying problems is that churches are very trusting places. We are too nice for our own good and see good in other people. If someone wants to have unguarded access to children, churches used to be a easy picking. That is not really possible now with Safeguarding policies that have been in place for many years now.

As for homosexuality of priests, devout men may try to be faithful to the church teaching and, rather than confront their sexuality, pick the one job where you have to remain celibate. But we all fall short of the glory of God, and it takes a strong person to not yield to temptation.

The RCCs reaction to the scandals has been very wrong. They now admit that themselves. It is a very slippery slope, and the crisis built up over many years, with only a handful of people knowing the true extent. Of course, these priest should have been handed over to the secular authorities, and no one is denying that now.

I think the doctrinal problem for the RCC is down to how they view the priesthood. They believe that a priest is 'in the person of Christ' in persona christi'. It is pretty hard to reconcile the actions of someone who is viewed as almost Christ himself with a paedophile. To do this is to trash the whole notion of what it means to be ordained in the RCC.

I believe that is the main reason why the powers that be tried to cover it up. The RCC believes that their ordination is superior to all others and very much look down on presbyters in other churches. We know that Ratz doesn't even consider the C of E to be a real church.

Very interesting posting MmeBlueberry, I agree with what you say and think you've put the points across wonderfully, apart from your very last paragraph! I think all ministers of any religion would consider their own ordination to be superior (not just Catholic priests)... otherwise they would go and join a different religion! When did the Pope say that the C of E wasn't a real church?

It was when he was still a cardinal.

The RCC has a unique view of the priesthood, in as much as they believe that the presbyter is a substitute for Christ himself.

I believe presbyters in other denominations see themselves as ordinary men and women, with a particular job to do.

MmeBlueberry, the Priest is only a substitute for Christ at the time he is performing a sacrament, he is able to become a substitute for Christ only through grace which is given to him through the Church. The fact that he becomes a substitute for Christ at that particular time does not mean he is any better than anyone else at any other time. They are still human beings and sinners just like the rest of us!

Catholic Priests do see themselves as ordinary men (although not women ) with a particular job to do imo.

I have looked up the Pope's quote regarding what is a true Church and I think you are referring to a document which states "Christ 'established here on earth' only one Church" It follows on to say that other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession -- the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles, which is true is it not?

and some are criminals

Tell that to the Catholic mothers who sent their children to the priest and completely denied that the priest could do anything wrong, even when their own children tried to tell them of improper behaviour. They would have none of it, because the priest is perfect and Christ-like.

I know technically that in persona christi is just about the magical act of turning bread and wine in the Real Presence, but that is not what the families of the abuse victims believed.

Anglican bishops can trace their succession back to the original apostles, btw.

There was some doubt about Ratzinger's consecration in that one of the bishops who laid hands on him was a bit dodgy paperwork-wise. However, it is built inot the system that you have three bishops laying on hands, so that there is a good chance that one of them is valid. It shows that the system is open to flaws.

Agree with both of you!

Priests are not perfect and some of them are criminals - just like the rest of humanity!