Smoking Gun for Ratzinger. That's it!

[Ladewig]

I didn't mean tittypics. Stop straining at gnats and thinking you caught an elephant. I meant our culture.

Why do you seem to need to deliberately and repeatedly misportray my words?
You may have noticed. I'm pretty direct and concise, and even offensive to some..
there's no need to guess for seeming translations, as you know.

Your discussion is off topic for this thread. If you really want to discuss it, then start a new thread.

 

[154]

I see. Again. This is how it is done with you people.

Misstating, mischaracterizing and misportraying my words is "on-topic" and allowed to stand.

My saying as much is "off-topic."

Nice chatting with you all.

 

[Ladewig]

I see. Again. This is how it is done with you people.

Misstating, mischaracterizing and misportraying my words is "on-topic" and allowed to stand.

My saying as much is "off-topic."

Nice chatting with you all.

First, I am not a moderator. My posts have no power of authority.


Second, many a thread in the JREF has been started by someone who was upset about how he or she was treated in a different thread. Other threads have been started to clarify a position first mentioned in another thread.

I'm pretty direct ,.

I don't think so. I still have no idea why you brought up the topic of homosexuality in this thread.

 

[Simon39759]

I didn't mean tittypics. Stop straining at gnats and thinking you caught an elephant. I meant our culture.

What the frack are you talking about? Do you have typing Tourette?


Here is a summary of the discussion:
RoadToad: Boys that have been molested by a man often do not report him, by fear of being labelled homosexuals themselves.
You: Our society is pornographic enough as it is!
Me: WTF is the relationship between pornography and prejudice against homosexuals? Do you think all porn amateurs sharing some kind of perversion with the gays or something?
You: That's not what I said! Stop lying about what I said!

Why do you seem to need to deliberately and repeatedly misportray my words?
You may have noticed. I'm pretty direct and concise, and even offensive to some..
there's no need to guess for seeming translations, as you know.

I am not. I am trying to make sense of your seemingly random epistolean ejaculations... I'll stop now.

 

[Roadtoad]

What the frack are you talking about? Do you have typing Tourette?


Here is a summary of the discussion:
RoadToad: Boys that have been molested by a man often do not report him, by fear of being labelled homosexuals themselves.
You: Our society is pornographic enough as it is!
Me: WTF is the relationship between pornography and prejudice against homosexuals? Do you think all porn amateurs sharing some kind of perversion with the gays or something?
You: That's not what I said! Stop lying about what I said!



I am not. I am trying to make sense of your seemingly random epistolean ejaculations... I'll stop now.

It's a good summary.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am not. I am trying to make sense of your seemingly random epistolean ejaculations...

Not to mention the cleaning up afterwards ...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

154, while I respect your right to have an opinion, I don't think you've thought the matter through properly and you seem ill-informed. The reason the abuse victims are often boys is simply that there are a greater number of altar boys than altar girls in the Catholic church. Kinda hard to abuse altar girls when they don't exist yet, you know.

Everyone is quick to say "pedophile," and rightfully so.
They say "homosexual" much more rarely. Why is that?

For the same reason they're reluctant to say "white paedophile", "blonde paedophile" or "right-handed paedophile". It's an irrelevant factor. Unless, of course, you could correct me with some sound evidence.

 

[Roadtoad]

One of the grand fallacies I'm seeing in this is the notion that what happened is an Christian or Catholic failing. It is not.

What we have seen here in this instance is a human failing. Having to come face to face with this evil is a difficult, painful, and brutal thing. Children were battered sexually for the pointless gratification of a few evil, cowardly people. Any further discussion of why this took place is a waste, because the reality is that it does not matter. Society has agreed that abusing children is an evil and selfish act, and is out of line with the rule of a civilized society. Period. Regardless of who is performing the abuse.

The Roman Catholic Church is a large bureaucracy, whose purpose is to perpetuate the growth and power of the parent organization. It's very easy to see how this kind of cover-up takes place, simply because we see the same thing happening in the financial world, such as with the failure of Washington Mutual or Goldman-Sachs, in manufacturing, such as with Sunbeam and Tyco, and in the Federal Government with the blunders that took place in Congress with the financial meltdown, and in the failure of the Pentagon to properly police its procurement. (Or do I need to remind folks of the thousand dollar hammers?)

Bureaucracies don't like anything untoward. It's their job to deal with it expediently, dispassionately, and as cheaply as they can get away with it. If denial gets the pencil-pushers what they want, then they deny. It's simple. If they can buy someone off, out comes the checkbook. The goal is not to confront the evil in any bureaucratic setting, but to contain it.

While that might have some benefits from the beginning, the reality is that eventually the reality of the evil done is revealed, and those responsible for it are exposed. When Fr. Paul Shanley was preaching the value of Man-Boy love in his Sunday sermons, local congregations began petitioning the bishop(s) in Boston to get this scummy SOB out of their church. The Boston Diocese went into "Pass The Trash" mode, moved Shanley from one church to another, until it got to the point where it simply wasn't going to work any further. Once the Boston Globe began publishing their expose regarding Bernard Law's actions, the whole business was finally revealed to everyone, Shanley was now on the front page for all the wrong reasons, and in the end, millions of dollars were lost in legal fees and settlements.

Big shock here, folks: The abuse heaped on innocents is now coming to light, and we're not tolerating it. We've begun to realize that silence is not mere permission, but encouragement to perpetuate it.

Doubting Stephen once told me of a nun who literally held him outside of a window from the second story of his Catholic school. (You can search and find the story on the board.) It was abusive then, but not considered reportable or even thought to be significant. Today, we recognize that it's both, and the nun in question would properly be dismissed. Rather than providing shelter for such destructive behavior, we would challenge it, and demand a change. It's encouraging that it's taking place, but it's late in the game, and it's becoming more and more costly as time goes on.

The Rat is a BureaucRAT. His objective is not to confront, but to comfort and cover. The Wall Street Journal once discussed this, that lower executives are there to sparkle, the upper echelon is there to soothe. It's a matter of not rocking the boat, but rather of reminding those with a vested interest in perpetuating the organization that the entity in question will continue to stand. And when the question is one of eternal salvation, you want the entity to remain strong.

There is nothing new about this situation. It happens all the time. The most horrific thing about it is that it is happening in an organization whose mission statement includes protection of the innocent. That it failed so miserably at it is not a surprise, but that it refused to deal with it appropriately when it had the means and ability to do so is.

Something is going to give. Ratzinger might not like it, but as the CEO of what is, in essence, RCC, Inc., he doesn't have much choice.

 

[Simon39759]

While I agree with you that there is no direct causation between Christianity and pedophilia/ child molestation, and, certainly, any bureaucracy will tend to its self-preservation, I disagree with the level of equivocation.
While other institutions certainly have attempted covering up their own failings, I can't think of any that covered so serious crime so willingly and for as long as the RCC has done.

I also disagree that Ratzinger has no choice. Other companies have, in the past, admitted their mistakes, apologized for them and tried their very best to solve the problems.
The RCC does not really seem to make any effort for that, minimizing the suffering of the victims, trying to deflect the blame and, so far, I have been unimpressed by the RCC attempts at correcting the problem.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

That was never my words or my point. Try re-reading what I've actually said several times herein now if necessary to understand.

Wait, wait, I see another common denominator: all of the abuse was committed by men. Yes, for some reason no one is saying "male paedophiles". I suppose they're just too scared to come out and say it (including poor 154), because society has become too pornographic and we're supposed to celebrate diversity, whatever that means. So I'll say it for y'all: Want the child abuse to stop? Throw out all the male priests, and replace them with a horde of nuns!

Don't everybody thank me at once, it gives me anxiety issues.

 

[Roadtoad]

While I agree with you that there is no direct causation between Christianity and pedophilia/ child molestation, and, certainly, any bureaucracy will tend to its self-preservation, I disagree with the level of equivocation.
While other institutions certainly have attempted covering up their own failings, I can't think of any that covered so serious crime so willingly and for as long as the RCC has done.

I also disagree that Ratzinger has no choice. Other companies have, in the past, admitted their mistakes, apologized for them and tried their very best to solve the problems.
The RCC does not really seem to make any effort for that, minimizing the suffering of the victims, trying to deflect the blame and, so far, I have been unimpressed by the RCC attempts at correcting the problem.

Either I didn't state it well, or there's a misunderstanding. Ratzinger has no choice but to face this, and to deal with it responsibly. He has no right to ignore it, or to gloss it over.

 

[Darth Rotor]

One of the grand fallacies I'm seeing in this is the notion that what happened is an Christian or Catholic failing. It is not.

What we have seen here in this instance is a human failing. Having to come face to face with this evil is a difficult, painful, and brutal thing.

Children were battered sexually for the pointless gratification of a few evil, cowardly people. Any further discussion of why this took place is a waste, because the reality is that it does not matter. Society has agreed that abusing children is an evil and selfish act, and is out of line with the rule of a civilized society. Period. Regardless of who is performing the abuse.

The Roman Catholic Church is a large bureaucracy, whose purpose is to perpetuate the growth and power of the parent organization. It's very easy to see how this kind of cover-up takes place, simply because we see the same thing happening in the financial world, such as with the failure of Washington Mutual or Goldman-Sachs, in manufacturing, such as with Sunbeam and Tyco, and in the Federal Government with the blunders that took place in Congress with the financial meltdown, and in the failure of the Pentagon to properly police its procurement. (Or do I need to remind folks of the thousand dollar hammers?)

Bureaucracies don't like anything untoward. It's their job to deal with it expediently, dispassionately, and as cheaply as they can get away with it. If denial gets the pencil-pushers what they want, then they deny. It's simple. If they can buy someone off, out comes the checkbook. The goal is not to confront the evil in any bureaucratic setting, but to contain it.

While that might have some benefits from the beginning, the reality is that eventually the reality of the evil done is revealed, and those responsible for it are exposed. When Fr. Paul Shanley was preaching the value of Man-Boy love in his Sunday sermons, local congregations began petitioning the bishop(s) in Boston to get this scummy SOB out of their church. The Boston Diocese went into "Pass The Trash" mode, moved Shanley from one church to another, until it got to the point where it simply wasn't going to work any further. Once the Boston Globe began publishing their expose regarding Bernard Law's actions, the whole business was finally revealed to everyone, Shanley was now on the front page for all the wrong reasons, and in the end, millions of dollars were lost in legal fees and settlements.

Big shock here, folks: The abuse heaped on innocents is now coming to light, and we're not tolerating it. We've begun to realize that silence is not mere permission, but encouragement to perpetuate it.

Doubting Stephen once told me of a nun who literally held him outside of a window from the second story of his Catholic school. (You can search and find the story on the board.) It was abusive then, but not considered reportable or even thought to be significant. Today, we recognize that it's both, and the nun in question would properly be dismissed. Rather than providing shelter for such destructive behavior, we would challenge it, and demand a change. It's encouraging that it's taking place, but it's late in the game, and it's becoming more and more costly as time goes on.

The Rat is a BureaucRAT. His objective is not to confront, but to comfort and cover. The Wall Street Journal once discussed this, that lower executives are there to sparkle, the upper echelon is there to soothe. It's a matter of not rocking the boat, but rather of reminding those with a vested interest in perpetuating the organization that the entity in question will continue to stand. And when the question is one of eternal salvation, you want the entity to remain strong.

There is nothing new about this situation. It happens all the time. The most horrific thing about it is that it is happening in an organization whose mission statement includes protection of the innocent. That it failed so miserably at it is not a surprise, but that it refused to deal with it appropriately when it had the means and ability to do so is.
Something is going to give. Ratzinger might not like it, but as the CEO of what is, in essence, RCC, Inc., he doesn't have much choice.

Great post, RT, as usual, with a few of the best points bolded for emphasis.

Note to RT: I would correct one of the bolds to "the heirarchy of the RCC is a bureaucracy" since the laity make up the bulk of the RCC. No surprise, then, that the bureaucracy is not serving the people well on this matter, and hasn't for some time ... bureaucracies often have that shortcoming. They forget to serve.

 

[Roadtoad]

Great post, RT, as usual, with a few of the best points bolded for emphasis.

Note to RT: I would correct one of the bolds to "the heirarchy of the RCC is a bureaucracy" since the laity make up the bulk of the RCC. No surprise, then, that the bureaucracy is not serving the people well on this matter, and hasn't for some time ... bureaucracies often have that shortcoming. They forget to serve.

Thanks for the compliment, and the correction. That's the part that really needs to be emphasized.

 

[Darth Rotor]

While other institutions certainly have attempted covering up their own failings, I can't think of any that covered so serious crime so willingly and for as long as the RCC has done.

The RCC does not really seem to make any effort for that, minimizing the suffering of the victims, trying to deflect the blame and, so far, I have been unimpressed by the RCC attempts at correcting the problem.

http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_14865682

FWIW, the USCCB did make a move to more quickly address allegations and actual cases of wrongdoings. In 2002. IMO, that had a lot to do with the number of cases RCC was losing as more and more came to light.
Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People

http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/charter.shtml

The Charter directs action in all the following matters:

• Creating a safe environment for children and young people;
• Healing and reconciliation of victims and survivors;
• Making prompt and effective response to allegations;
• Cooperating with civil authorities;
• Disciplining offenders;
• Providing for means of accountability for the future to ensure the problem continues to be effectively dealt with through a national Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection and a National Review Board.

However, as I looked for some commentary on systemic problems related to this charter, I found a striking reminder that we are dealing with a tenaciously authoritarian structure here, entitled A Canonical Perspective on the Sexual Abuse Crisis.
I suspect that there will continue to be problems, problems induced by organizational attitude:

The interaction of bishops and the faithful in structures for participation is not a theoretical question; it is a practical matter. Participative structures in the church are not efforts to incorporate democratic procedures into the church. For the church is neither a democracy, nor a constitutional monarchy, nor an oligarchy. The church cannot be compared to any political model for it is uniquely a spiritual communion guided by the power of the Holy Spirit.

OK, are the clergy accountable to the laity or not, Sister? If not, the problem won't go away ... but the parishoners might.
@ SafeKeeper:

Want the child abuse to stop? Throw out all the male priests, and replace them with a horde of nuns!

Isn't it the nuns who whack kids with rulers? Also, note the nun's comments in the link, and the excerpt I cut from it: maybe the nuns are more deeply involved in the cover up that you suspect. Maybe not.

DR

 

[Maia]

While I agree with you that there is no direct causation between Christianity and pedophilia/ child molestation, and, certainly, any bureaucracy will tend to its self-preservation, I disagree with the level of equivocation.
While other institutions certainly have attempted covering up their own failings, I can't think of any that covered so serious crime so willingly and for as long as the RCC has done.

I agree, and I also tried to point this out before. But it's also because institutions such as corporations go on to manufacture other things that aren't directly related to what failed. Drug companies weather thalidomide scandals by eventually admitting responsiblity, and they move on precisely by the fact that they do manufacture and market whatever the next drug is. If the RCC doesn't change on an institutional level (how about if I bet a skrillion dollars that this won't happen?), then they can't go on to the "next thing." There is no next thing. Priests will still be required to live lives of celibacy, and they will still be an integral part of a church system where they have access to altar boys (and yes, some girls too.)

I also argued quite a while back in this thread that whatever can be said about corporations, at least they don't pretend to be in the business of anything but making money. The RCC, like all churches, has gotten away with this:

The RCC does not really seem to make any effort for that, minimizing the suffering of the victims, trying to deflect the blame and, so far, I have been unimpressed by the RCC attempts at correcting the problem.

because the mission is supposed to be so much higher, and the stakes for all of society so much more important. It's about a thousand years too late to suddenly drag out the utilitarian argument for the RCC now. At the very least, church leaders cannot expect to get away with using this argument to excuse anything their institutions have been responsible for. I tried to defend the RCC for a long time, and I am all through.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Everyone is quick to say "pedophile," and rightfully so.
They say "homosexual" much more rarely. Why is that?

The reason is that it colors how people think about the problem without actually giving any meaning. Want to see how it can go wrong? See the Boy Scouts of America.

The BSA has had it's own sexual misconduct problems in the news lately. Files were kept on suspected "bad men" and the BSA tried to exclude these people without actually involving the police. Their secrecy is now costing them big dollars in abuse and misconduct cases.

Homosexuals are now banned from participation because of sexual misconduct concerns. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of the those found guilty of sexual misconduct were not homosexual and, in fact, were married. Many with children and good church-going credentials.

So, the BSA has banned people who are honest about their sexuality and encouraged others to lie about their sexuality in an effort to reduce sexual misconduct. That's gonna work great, I'm sure.

 

[Simon39759]

Either I didn't state it well, or there's a misunderstanding. Ratzinger has no choice but to face this, and to deal with it responsibly. He has no right to ignore it, or to gloss it over.

The problem may very well be me having a poor understanding.
Anyway; we mostly agree.
I wouldn't say as emphatically as you do that Ratzinger has to address the issue, though. A war, a well publicized natural catastrophe, maybe even a washed-out pop-star forgetting her underwear, might cause enough of a diversion for matters to blow over for a while, especially if no new cases surface for a while.
Ratzinger is old and might have the good idea of dying during the reprieve, and I think the RCC is going to do a better job at vetting the pope next time...

http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_14865682

[Snip-snip-snippa]

Frack; 2002, that's really late, eh?
They finally took measures, but nothing earth shattering and I am doubtful about how willing the hierarchy will be to really address the issues.
I wonder how much of them is just empty posturing while waiting for the matter to blow over...

Thanks for the info, though.

I agree, and I also tried to point this out before. But it's also because institutions such as corporations go on to manufacture other things that aren't directly related to what failed. Drug companies weather thalidomide scandals by eventually admitting responsiblity, and they move on precisely by the fact that they do manufacture and market whatever the next drug is. If the RCC doesn't change on an institutional level (how about if I bet a skrillion dollars that this won't happen?), then they can't go on to the "next thing." There is no next thing. Priests will still be required to live lives of celibacy, and they will still be an integral part of a church system where they have access to altar boys (and yes, some girls too.)
I also argued quite a while back in this thread that whatever can be said about corporations, at least they don't pretend to be in the business of anything but making money. The RCC, like all churches, has gotten away with this:
because the mission is supposed to be so much higher, and the stakes for all of society so much more important. It's about a thousand years too late to suddenly drag out the utilitarian argument for the RCC now. At the very least, church leaders cannot expect to get away with using this argument to excuse anything their institutions have been responsible for. I tried to defend the RCC for a long time, and I am all through.

Well, corporations ultimately have to report to their share holders while the RCC ultimately do not report to the imaginary invisible man in the sky.
Also, if the company tank, its hierarchy will loose their job. The church is unlikely to tank anytime soon, they have asset and many of their members are unlikely to ever leave the church for whatever reason...

 

[Roadtoad]

The problem may very well be me having a poor understanding.
Anyway; we mostly agree.
I wouldn't say as emphatically as you do that Ratzinger has to address the issue, though. A war, a well publicized natural catastrophe, maybe even a washed-out pop-star forgetting her underwear, might cause enough of a diversion for matters to blow over for a while, especially if no new cases surface for a while.
Ratzinger is old and might have the good idea of dying during the reprieve, and I think the RCC is going to do a better job at vetting the pope next time...

This is what scares me. That we'll get a crotch shot of Paris Hilton, or Lindsay Lohan, and we'll be distracted from this. And that would be equally inexcusable.

No one, whether they're Catholic or not, can afford to ignore this. What happened is genuinely evil, and it must be dealt with. There was real harm done, and it's not going to be undone with a pat on the back, "There, there, we'll get that bad old man." Not going to happen.

And, keep in mind that bad old men reside within all strata, in all professions. Trust me, there are plenty of creeps who are protected, whether they should be or not.

 

[Meadmaker]

The church is unlikely to tank anytime soon, they have asset and many of their members are unlikely to ever leave the church for whatever reason...

But they might plummet dramatically, in numbers of members, in financial clout, and in prestige. It wouldn't surprise me if 20 years from now, the Catholic Church is a fraction of its current size, and I think this scandal will be a large factor in causing that. However, that's highly speculative.

 

[Simon39759]

Well, this might accelerate the drop of Roman Catholicism in Europe and the Americas (it is growing in the U.S; I guess, mostly due to the immigration from Latin America) but Roman Catholicism is growing fastest in Asia and Africa, which lead me to wonder, how good an access to the news do the local populations have and how aware are they of the scandals affecting the church?


By the way; here are some data about the progression of Roman Catholicism.