The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
I am COREY RODRIGUEZ by name, CEO of protocol & sheild hackers In this message, we will explain you how our service works. Read it carefully. Its reading will not take more than 10mins. We kindly ask you not to answer without have read the entire text. Those who answer without have read everything, ask questions that are answered here!!
◾ VERY IMPORTANT
We assist computer "HACKING"....For years now, We've helped organisations and so many sites, Bank Accounts, school upgrades and most especially "CLEAR CRIMINAL RECORDS" of all sort and in short timing hacked petty cyber sites accounts like Skpe, Fb, Whatsapp, Tinder, Twitter but these are significant experience a good and effectively recognized organisation must firmly ascertain and minorly our "AIM" here.
1◾the aim is to render proficient solution to those having cyber issues and technically needs a hacker to get their job done effectively fast..!!
2◾ to recruit real hackers (gurus only) in need of job with or without a degree..!!
So if you ever need a job done or interested in joining the organization (an online binanry exam will be set for those in need of these job) you can write us on
For those who need not stress using emails you can also write us for help on
"Peter's Pence ... are donations or payments made directly to the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, rather than through local parishes" (Wikipedia - "Peter's Pence"). When I was a child, Roman Catholics were expected to donate one day's worth of their earnings (wages or others).
Question: What would happen if U.S. Roman Catholics were to boycott the collection, and send zilch to Rome? Would that force the Vatican to take a good look at what cardinals and bishops do, or fail to do? Or has such a boycott already been tried, and with what results?
"Alexa McPherson, along with her two brothers, was sexually abused by her pastor between the ages of three and nine."
Questions: Where were the parents? What were they thinking? Was it 'normal parental behavior' to entrust a three-year old to a priest, or did they use him as a baby-sitter?
Another question (for 'statisticians' perhaps): is the percentage of pedophile priests greater in the United States than in other countries, in particular European countries? The United States is a very religious country; would that result in parents being more trusting, and pedophiles more likely to get away with what they are doing? Does anybody know?
Let's put the blame entirely on those that deserve it, not parents who trusted their children to be in Sunday school while they were at mass services. The blame is with those priests and the higher ups in the Catholic church that hid this activity for so many years.
My ignorance I guess (or I did not keep up-to-date): 'where I come from' catechism classes were held on weekdays, and even young children could go to mass; but, then, that was a long time ago, before baby-sitters had been invented.
Don't have stats, but it's doubtful the problem was any worse in the U.S. than anywhere else with large Catholic populations. I know Ireland, in particular, has uncovered a huge amount of priestly scandal, as has Germany.
A better question is: is the problem more prevalent among priests than among others who are given positions of power or trust over children? I once met a deacon (one step below a full-blown priest) who claimed the problem of child sexual abuse was just as prevalent, and just as covered-up, among secular institutions like public or non-denomenational private schools.
Sexual abuse of children is vile no matter what their gender, but it does seem significant that such a high proportion of the priestly abuse involved boys. Does enforced celibacy somehow attract pederasts?
Anyway, the Roman Catholic Church has forever lost much of its authority.
I think parents watch their daughters far more carefully than their sons (at lest they used to); the original reason was, of course, that boys don't get pregnant so... too bad for the neighbors. That also makes boys more 'accessible' (if that is the word).
It is a horrid church which shelters and is governed by preening perverts offering nothing but their pretences of morality. May they all burn in Hell.
This is how the justice system in America helps people? We should rename it the injust system. What I don't understand is how people can actually go to church every week, donate their money ( I know 2 pastors who have paid my friends rent and other bills she's a real life hooker, she's told me she's serviced them many times) These paedophiles take advantage of your children and you go back and do it all over again next Sunday, in the name of God. I doubt, I highly doubt that God would want this to happen to anyone wake up America
many posts refer to the christian requirement to forgive along with Jesus' words against judging others. sometimes overlooked is the scriptural mandate to keep corruption in check by expelling those practicing gross wrongdoing, with the words ". . . do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." - 2 Corinthians 5:12 & 13.
Christians are not to judge those outside the congregation, but within they are commanded to hold adherents to the moral code they embraced, removing those whose conduct is severe enough to pose a danger to other members.
The compromises made to this principle over 2,000 years has given rise to an organization of irredeemable corruption. It's actions have been exposed in Australia, Canada, & Ireland as nothing short of global human trafficking. The suffering it has imposed on "widows & orphans" throughout history, is incomprehensible. The Canadian government is still trying to grasp the enormity of abuse that they sanctioned when they handed over indigenous children who were torn from their families, to Church run schools to be abused, neglected & buried in mass unmarked graves. No rationale will absolve this institution from the judgement that awaits. Living victims today, are a small representation of the millions, whose blood is crying out to God from the ground - Gen.4:10. Soon we will witness Rev. 18:5 - "For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." Victims take heart!
There's a bit of hypocrisy ---perhaps justifiable hypocrisy here. When a Catholic priest molests a child, the Liberal media celebrates the act as a perversion of religion. They'll do anything to keep advertising it, including wrapping a cardinal's obituary around it. But when the gay mayor of Seattle molested children, including his young cousin and foster son, the Liberals tried to pretend it was no big deal. When the good mayor passes away, will the Liberals write a diatribe about why they think gays should not be elected to public office?
Kinda an idiotic post. Moore was pimped by POTUS and several of Seattle’s council insisted Murray step down.
Crap like that is an excuse to do nothing.
He stayed in office for FIVE MONTHS after the allegations surfaced. He didn't "step down" until the State of Oregon released a report proving that he'd raped his foster son, and then his cousin denounced him for raping the cousin as a child:
Mayor Ed Murray announced his resignation hours after a fifth accuser, a cousin, said Murray molested him when the cousin was a teen. Murray maintains he has never abused anyone.
For five months, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray rejected calls for his resignation amid allegations he sexually abused teens decades before entering politics.
But Murray couldn’t withstand a devastating new allegation from within his own family.
Mayor Murray lawsuit
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray resigns after fifth child sex-abuse allegation
Accuser files new suit against former mayor Ed Murray, adds city of Seattle as defendant
Murray's cousin accuses him of child molestation
Man who sued Murray over alleged sex abuse wants millions from the city
Accuser drops lawsuit against Seattle mayor
Murray won't seek second term: 'It tears me to pieces to step away'
Lawsuit alleges Murray sexually abused troubled teen in 1980s
Meet Lincoln Beauregard, the lawyer for Mayor Murray’s accuser
‘He knows my name’: Accuser speaks out
Why we're not allowing reader comments
Podcast: How our story came together
Complete coverage »
He announced his resignation Tuesday, hours after news emerged that a younger cousin was publicly accusing Murray of molesting him in New York in the 1970s.
“While the allegations against me are not true, it is important that my personal issues do not affect the ability of our city government to conduct the public’s business,” the mayor said.
The Seattle City Council defended him as long as it could:
Seattle's City Council president says that Murray shouldn't necessarily have to resign - and said that no one should have to be judged today for what he or she did decades ago.
The long-lost records, unearthed by Oregon's Department of Human Services, contained a child-welfare investigator's bombshell finding that Murray had sexually abused his foster son, Jeff Simpson, prompting state officials to conclude that "under no circumstances" should Murray serve as a foster parent in the future.
Are you proud of what your Liberal Democrats in Seattle did to protect this guy?
Do you believe he should have stayed in office for five months after these allegations of child rape emerge?
Do you agree with the City Council President that "no one should be judged today" for raping children "decades ago?"
Some called for him step down. Some defended him. A few years back we had a little scandal in the Catholic Church.
A friend of mind dealt with a pedophile teacher in the 60s. Deflected him, but now it turns out he molested children in continuously till retirement.
Somehow making it partisan or asking me to own fucked up behavior politicians for a party I don’t give a shit about is rediclous.
Anyone cleaving to the Dems or Republicans two corrupt parties is a lost cause in my book. You’re part of the problem.
Please show me one link of a media source celebrating. Your post is nothing but right wing propaganda. It was right wing future Pope Benedict that covered up this mess with the central church and was a major reason he "retired".
You involved yourself in the discussion by calling my post "idiotic." I was just curious how you felt about a similar occurrence in the political world.
You can link to this article. Why does the Economist, a supposedly current events and political magazine with a business / economics viewpoint, care about the death of an obscure cardinal? The only reason they cared about it was to celebrate his life as an accomplice of child molesters.
Your first position was that the POTUS was evil for "pimping" for Moore, but that the Democrats of Seattle were noble for commanding their mayor to step down.
Then when I confronted you with the facts about the Democrats of the city council defending their mayor for five months, you changed your position to: "I don't care about politicians raping children." But you cared about it in your post when you thought the facts were on your side.
There is an old say in Italy, mothers tell their kids "Spesso in chiesa, mai in canonica", which means: often in church, never in rectory.
I do not understand why the Catholic Church continues to exist. They systematically rape our children, those who do so are supported by church hierarchy, they lie about the rape. They cover up the crime and intimidate witnesses, and then lie about doing so. They move priests, bishops and cardinals to avoid prosecution. When they are finally caught they lie about their finances in court documents and again deny that there is a church policy for doing so. Any other organization that did half the things that the Catholic Church does as a matter of policy would be labeled a criminal organization.
In the face of their continued criminality and stonewalling the church needs to be named as a criminal enterprise. The RICO Standards should be applied to them in the US. The priests who did the crime, the bishops who covered it up, and the cardinals who authorized the policy should be arrested and if found guilty, sentenced to long prison terms. They are unlikely to serve them to completion. The prisons have their own punishment for those who rape children. The pope needs to be notified that he risks arrest as the head of a criminal enterprise if he ever visits the US again.
A Special Master should be appointed to oversee the operations of the church in the US, as was done with the Teamsters Union. Among the changes required or imposed on the church: Their tax exempt status should be revoked until the Special Master certifies compliance with all requirements. No priest should ever be alone with a child under 18. The discipline of any priest accused of misconduct must be approved by the Special Master. Women must be admitted to the priesthood and all church offices. Church assets will be seized and used to pay restitution to the church's victims. The church's books will be subject to a complete audit. The charitable side of the church will be spun off into a separate 501(c)3 with their own board of directors and bylaws.
The continued existence of the catholic church in America should be subject to the compliance with the requirements of the Special Master. The catholic church has ignored the laws of the countries it operates in for over 1,000 years, and preyed on the weak for all of that time. They have become evil. It needs to stop now.
"I do not understand why the Catholic Church continues to exist."
Easy answer, for a subset of Catholics within the Catholic Church. - mind you, not all Catholics are like that; only this subset are. They call themselves Super-Catholics, I suppose.
A representative of this subset - see my exchange with one such below - says the answer is: Everyone Else Commits more Sins than the Church. Therefore. .
The trademark of the folks in this subset is trolling in cyberspace to ad hominem attack anyone's thoughts and ideas are different from theirs, in as odious a fashion as possible, thereby achieving their object of changing the subject matter of a presenting issue to something else having NOTHING to do with anything pertaining to the subject matter, in this case, shifting the subject from the sins of the child-molesters in the Church's clerics to your sins.
This "Method" is used frequently by this sort of "Christians". If you protest their rudeness and their non sequitur comments, they add another sin to yours: You are a "hypocritic" (the subtext being they are not hypocrites). Jesus, the original one, weeps.
AND, as a SEPARATE Q, I think the Catholic Church is NOT, repeat, NOT, all bad. The church, in particular under Pope Francis, does manyb good things. Child molestation in their cleric does not represent ALL the church. And it is not even a majority in their cleric who molest children. Indeed, a minority.
On this occasion of Law's funeral, in my shoes as a Board-Certified clinician who treats sexual abuse victims whose abuse happened many years ago when they were children, AND a forensic expert on the issue of guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant in a sexual molestation case in American courts (yes, there is such a thing - some defendants never did the thing they were accused of), Pope Francis exercised poor judgment to give Law the high pomp and circumstance funeral he gave [Cf. the article. Read it again. As well as more articles in Guardian and NYTimes. Even the Pope can err. In this case, he did. This is my opinion.
You are correct in that not all priests and members of the church hierarchy are involved in abusing children, but when it happens in San Diego, LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boise, Billings, Tuscon, Phoenix, Atlanta, Boston, NYC, on and on. A reasonable person would draw the conclusion that there is something systemic to the Catholic Church that is promoting child abuse and cover up. Combine this with the fact that it has been going on for a very, very long time, I sand by my question: Why does the Catholic Church continue to exist?
PS: When all their spurious arguments fail, and their rudeness and idiocy are more pungent than 2-week old uncollected garbage in New York City in a mid-summer sanitation-workers strike, they will deploy the ultimate stratagem of a TROLL: They will pretend they can't read . And write more nonsequiturs to boot.
[You beat me to my Postscript. I am furious at these Christian Trolls who favor TE with their idiocy, time and time again, regardless how serious an issue we are addressing - the mental and psycholgical lives of sexually abused children.]
Yes! You are 100% correct there is something systemic going on in the Church that is very problematic . It doesn't take a "reasonable person" to see that. It takes only a person with half a brain.
Apart from the answer I submit which submits the answer to your Q by an idiotic, ultra-, super-Catholic, I think several serious points pertain: (1) - The Church has been around for a long time; (2) - The Church has insinutated itself into enough poltical apparati everywhere (btw, in your list of places, you forgot to include countries outside USA) to hold brute political power; (3) - (1) and (2) add up to power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; (4) There are enough in the memebership I enumerate th trademarks of above to keep the deep root of the Church secure and in place; (5) Just an observation: The Church's hold of folks with more than half a brain is on the wane. You can only fool some of the people some of the time, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
All (1) through (5) notwithstanding, I continue to assert it is NOT the faith of the religions that is WRONG. Jesus did not start out to breed (indeed he had no heir, not one) the monsters you see (including the trolls) . There is no man alive who can single-handedly reform the Catholic church. [I have deep affection and respect for the person who is Pope Francis. But even he is human, like the rest of us.] Nor will there ever be, in my pessismitic prediction. Particularly, in view of how the practitioners of the faith continue, with utmost conviction, to use their so-called faith as both a sword and a shield in wantonly perpetuating their on-the-earth and in-this-life unacceptable conduct and behavior to fellow human beings.
I have spent way more time than I have availabe in the discussions addressing Catholic Clerics in the specific Blog Subject - child molestation in Catholic clerics. This will be my final reply to anyone. Thank you very much for your input and a chance for me to exchange views with you.
To close, I reiterate: Yes, something SYSTEMICALLY very wrong. Pernicious is the word.
What utter rubbish!! Aren't you Americans made of sterner stuff? No! You all want to princes and princesses, so you don't have to face reality.
You must be a pathetic Democrat?
So then I take it you are OK with have priests rape your children? You view this as the proper function of the church?
I agree with you every one of those bastards needs to be tried and held accountable because they are nothing but abuses hiding behind the name of God yet Americans still put up with it, and Faithfully go to church every week. Why is that? I think Americans have lost their backbone, I guarantee if it was one of my children this pedophile would not have gotten away with it. Open your eyes and do something about this America, these are your sons and daughters.
Child molestation and sexual interference or rape, whatever you want to call it, is completely unacceptable.
The Church is an unwilling participant in all of this, which is the grievous fault of individuals. And as with any individual, mankind has the propensity for evil. The Church is inanimate and is not responsible for the actions or sexual predations of others. Any crime is not being committed in the name of the Church. It is only because the money lies within the Church that it has been held accountable. Man's evil extends to such retribution, that it will find anyone or anything as a scape-goat, as long as money and riches are involved.
Humanity must be held accountable for its inability to deselect child abuse from its genetic pool, just as it is unable to do the same with rape, murder, corruption etc. because it is within the natural instinct of man to offend and interfere with others. Cast ye not the first stone!
I must disagree. When it happens in hundreds of cities spread over every country where the church is present, when high church officials are involved in the cover up and intimidation of witnesses, and lying in court documents, when church officials all the way up to cardinals are moved to avoid prosecution and when it has been going on for hundreds, if not a thousand years, it is church policy. Those are crimes that are being committed in the name of the church and it is the church which is ultimately responsible and must pay the price. Forgiveness is God's providence, but consequences belong to man. It is time for the church to pay those consequences; it will be a heavy load because by any reasonable definition, the Catholic Church has become a force of evil in the world.
"The Church is an unwilling participant in all of this": right, but Cardinal Law represented The Church, and Cardinal Law, and his predecessors, allowed child-abuse to continue instead of making sure it was punished. They did not even bother to stop it; if they 'prayed to God' to stop or prevent it, obviously God did not answer their prayers. How do you feel about that?
You also wrote: "It is only because the money lies within the Church that it has been held accountable". I agree that giving money to the victims will not undo what was done to them, but then, please tell me, was it not Cardinal Law's moral duty to make sure that these priests were tried and sent to jail if found guilty? As far as the victims are concerned, do you think the victims would ask for financial compensation years and years later if their abusers had been arrested and tried at the time the abuse happened? The Cardinal knew what was going on; yet he let it happen. Isn't it right to curse him?
It took a whole church to cover it up by moving these priest to another district, shield them from prosecution and not even notifying those people they have a pedophile in their midst. That future Pope Benedict was one of the key figures in the cover-up is damning. To me Pope Francis lost any goodwill he had when he condemned the scandal by taking part in this charade. Its no different than the situation at Penn State where the administration decided the reputation of the school was more important than the crime committed.
Celibacy leads to sexual deviation (whatever that may mean, including having a heterosexual relationship as a supposedly celibate priests). Just read Richard Sipes research on the number of priests who engage in sexual relationships in one form or another.
Celibacy is biologically abnormal and results in strong desires for sex, which the majority of humans give in to (including priests).
Richard Sipe actually found celibacy to be achievable (over time) and by analysing the lives of priests who had done so, set out recipe for such a life.
Part of the problem is that young men in seminaries were not actually given any training or education in the route to this.
His case studies in his seminal writings are illuminating
Celibacy is absolutely achievable, its just abnormal and leads to deviant behavior.
And you know this because...
I’d suggest that paedophiles target schools. When teachers can predate in teens for decades, from the 60s right up till retirement, you can point to any institutional leader being incapable of dealing swiftly with the circumstance.
The deviants seek suitable hunting grounds to ply their trade.
We are all "sexual-deviates", celibates or married. Married women and men watch porn, visit male or female prostitutes while the have wives and husbands at home, celibates do same while not having husbands and wives at home. Just watch the news - hollywood actresses sexually harrassed by stupid old men who have had sex from their teenage years and should be tired already but are not. Even you Nannite if we publish your sexual itinerary I do not think it's going to be that edifying. Sex is a passion like anger, you have to subject it to reason else you may end up doing weird stuff, lol.
The Catholic Church has had hundreds of years of practicing hypocrisy. However this act is so stupid it makes us realise that their management is far from wise and the Pope is NOT infallible.
Have you never been hypocritical sometime in your life? Why make a fuss of nothing? The church is hypocritical, the pope is not infallible, and so what? Jesus started the Church, he knew men and women will make it up with their ups and downs, but we have to keep repenting and forgiving. No body is perfect! Judas sold him, Peter denied him x3, friends abandoned him at the cross, yet he forgave all. He could have used fire to burn them all up. Why is it so hard to forgive. I think that's the disease of our times.
You mean the Pope is not impeccable (fallibility is something entirely different).
Forgiving is good; if you are religious, you may even call it 'holy' -- however, you overlooked something: you can forgive what has been done to you but it is not in your power to 'forgive' what has been done to others, even if these 'others' happen to be your own children. If you go to confession, a priest may absolve you, but that absolution is worth nothing if you don't get forgiven by the very people (children in this case) that you injured.
Is there any indication that the pedophile priests who were protected by the Church bothered to 'repent', or did they go on 'doing it'?
The Church often finds itself in a situation that to some extent the US does in connection with its current unfit President. Having to honour the office as prescribed while saying as little as possible about the piece of **** occupying it.
It is a recurring dilemma and the Church, when it has elevated (on behalf of Jesus) a man to the Episcopate, cannot ignore that. If two people have taken vows of matrimony before an ordained priest and a community, it cannot be "divorce" them (put asunder). It can, and does, allow them to live separately, of course, but what is irrevocable is just that.
I am actually certain that Francis allowed the funeral to be done "by the book", but his heart was heavy.
"I am actually certain that Francis allowed the funeral to be done "by the book", but his heart was heavy.
I am inclined to agree with you. Look at his face in the picture.
Child abuse is evil. But no matter how one may feel, one cannot but help think, that the attainment of some sort of financial advantage convinced many complainants that their poor life choices suddenly became the responsibility of some-one else.
How many children, ages 6-10, are responsible for their life choices? Ages 10-13? Ages 14-16? Lives are ruined, and someone is responsible. Unfortunately,the financial demand is the only demand that forced the Church to own up to its responsibility in this sad, sickening mess.
If my memory serves me correctly, most of the complainants waited until well into their adulthood before the sudden realisation that the church had been complicit in their downfall. Could it have been that the sudden appearance of dollar signs marked a defining moment? What else would have motivated them? I cannot imagine that a replay of the past was neither in their nor society's interest?
Psychological research into childhood sexual abuse documents the severity and length of the victims’ trauma, guilt, shame, and sense of violation. Because children were usually not believed when they reported priest abuse, their trauma was buried twice. When they or their families pressed the clergy for redress, they received punative treatment. Often, the church offered the victims “hush money” forcing them to sign non- disclosure agreements. Most children, however, not capable of mature reasoning, did not speak up out of overwhelming shame and, even, a sense of “guilt.” Typically, when these children reached adulthood, they exhibited profound psychological problems that required expensive professional treatment. Many victims sought money for that very reason. Another thought - when the criminal statute of limitations had run out for many victims, they had to resort to civil suit with its concomitant monetary awards. These were individuals who were abused by priests and then, when they became adults, were also abused by whatever hierarchy was in power, a group with tremendous power and resources to keep the victims silent and out of the press. (Cardinal Law hid priest-violators and kept re- assigning them to parish after parish.) I do know that some victims committed suicide and that all have deep psychological wounds to heal. I don’t know, Homocidalmaniacin, maybe some just wanted money . . . but the severity and horror of their abuse, the childhood silencing, the manifestations of inner violence in their adulthood, and the powerful church efforts to deny and hide the problem lead me to think that if they were after money, then most needed it for therapy.
Oh God! What utter nonsense! I bet none of that research is peer-reviewed, reproducible, or even of a standard to call it research.
If we brought up our children to deal with life's knocks, taught them to be mature, self-reliant, self-sufficient and ready to face the world, we wouldn't have a bunch of mummy's boys and girls, all thinking about playing the part of the prince or princess.
They wouldn't need counselling, they would have their peer groups to see them through. We need to teach our children, discipline, to deal with life's harsh realities and to get on with it despite having adverse experiences.
Teach your children how to pretend they never got raped. Got it
Very sad. The worst possible crimes.
Actually words fail me.
This is in no way a compliment to the late cardinal. It is a comment about English usage. The proper moniker is Bernard Cardinal Law, not Cardinal Bernard Law.
I am one of those who receive the "special training" TE cited as now mandatory in Boston for priests and church officials who have access to children. The program is named VIRTUS and it is an attempt by the Church to lessen its liabilities in future litigation.
The VIRTUS program is not pastoral. It was created by the Catholic Risk Retention Group and its purpose seems to be to provide a plausible defense in legal proceedings. It all but ignores the role of the clergy in the sex abuse scandals and, in fact, is introduced by a bishop straight out of Central Casting -- a Bing Crosby, "Going My Way" sort of prelate. In the visuals, ALL the former offenders are lay people and NONE of them are identified as current or former religious. The drift of it all is to shift the responsibility for this moral disaster from the clerics to the laity via a "See what you all did?!" tone toward the rest of us.
The Church has learned an invaluable lesson: "Don't get caught." And, if it were not for the plaintiff's bar it would not have learned even that. From time to time a pastor will, from the pulpit, denounce those who "were not worthy" of the Roman collar. It is all a bit like some fellow who just fell off a bar stool denouncing everyone else in the joint as lushes.
I have found that the priests are often very estimable as individuals -- but are generally lamentable as a group. Clericalism is a rot that has weakened the timbers of faith for century and will do so again.
I hope that Cardinal Law is with God in Heaven. As for what the people of Boston might think he "deserves," try and keep in mind that if the rest of US get what WE deserve on Judgment Day then the only person smiling will be Mother Theresa. Law had a lot for which to answer -- and so do I. Mercy is, by definition, "unmerited."
But, I know that the Church is not sincere in its efforts; that it will abandon close observation of its actions as soon as that is feasible; that it will try mightily to shift the guilt from itself to those who are innocent of abuse; and that it cannot be trusted to do what is right unless it is watched carefully, closely and relentlessly.
I doubt that the rest of us will find the energy -- which is what it is counting on.
"The church thinks in centuries" -- so, a few moments of embarrassment don't count for much.
The church offers a means of grace -- which is good news, given the church.
Lol, A. Andros, I know you, you are not in any special training, lol.
This is one of those travesties in life where forgive and forget are not the same thing.
When you "forget", you can't learn from what is forgotten.
The youngest victims under Law's knowing and deliberate coverup over a span of decades were in the age group of 4 to 7. For some of them, the damage never healed, and they went on to become pedophiles themselves.
Shame on Pope Francis.
Nobody knows what "God" thinks. But as humans, we do know what humans are morally obliged to do and not do.
The gesture of the Church to its own congregants on the occasion of Law's death is humanly unacceptable.
At least Jesus the Son of God encouraged us not to not judge others, and that we should forgive 70*7 times. The cardinal did not abuse any one himself. Perhaps he believed he could help the abusers to change. We present him as a monster who was supervising everything with glee. What do you want the church to do? To deny his own son a christian burial? The last hope for his salvation? If your son or daughter was shot as an armed robber, will you not bury him or her? What has happened has happened. We are all sorry and we regret it but not to piously bury your sinful son who has been disgraced already is inhuman. Remember the parable of the prodigal son. We are just being like the elder brother angry at his father forgiving the wantonness of his younger brother. Ashbird please do not be hypocritical. If we publish your own sins you may not even be better than the cardinal, lol. We are all sinners, may God have mercy on us.
To define the Church in terms of the actions of some individuals would, I believe, show extreme disrespect for all those congregants and members of religious orders who are untainted by scandal. For they are the Church.
No diagreement whatsoever.
Please read the nuance.
I presume diagreement infers that you are diametrically opposed to agreement?
Law was not an unread or unsophisticated man. He knew he was not doing right to coverup for the crimes of the priests.
He actively assisted the child molesters in his Church to move from one parish to another in order to evade law enforement when their deeds were exposed. Please read details in the articles published on Guardian and NYTimes about Cardinal Law's cover-up at the expense of the victims.
At law, Law' acts met the elements of accessory-after-the-fact. But he was not prosecuted due to the power of the Church.
Piously bury him by all means. But not to use the pomp. That is all my point.
Your lol is rude and unncessary to state your point. I am not in your Church, precisely for the reason you proved.
Even at this point, your concern is for Law's afterlife welfare, not the present lives of the thousands of people the child molesting priests have ruined and the pain the victims endured, as well as their families and loved ones. So much for your Christian piety. You make me ill.
There are lots and lots of Christians who are NOT like that. Repeat: NOT like that. They are contrite for their wrong when it is a wrong they do. they do't defend their wrong and turn around to attack others.
Wherever you think you are going after this life, rest assured I'll move just not to be your neighbor, Sir/Madam. You make me ill.
No need to do sophistry with me. You are wasting your time.
I think Law did wrong as to the victims and their families and loved ones. He was a cruel man in those deeds. Nothing Christian about it.
Pope Francis ought not rub salt on wounds by celebrating and glorifying Law's life on earth. By all means, a proper burial. But not make a big hoopla about it.
I have no interest to belabor the issue. Least of all the time. If you want to have the last word. Fine. Help yourself.
Thank you for your reply and Merry Christmas to you. I think Jesus was a great man. Most of his followers are not like the ones we read on TE.
So what sins have I committed? Mr/Mrs/Ms Illora?
I am curious.
State your case.
Lol, I can see you are very bellicose, lol. Please stop dramatizing the situation "thousands of people the child molesting priests have ruined and the pain the victims endured" Holy of hollies, do not just be hypocritical. Law was wrong to hide bad guys but he has repented, let us forgive him. Bitter guys like you who find it so hard to forgive end up being the worst.
You tell us, how do we know? But you can't claim here that you've had a clean slate from childhood.
In 3 sentences you managed to pile on a thousand assumptions and anciillary assumptions about a person you know NOTHING about.
Perahps you pretend you can't read or you really can't read.
It is a total waste of time to talk to you.
I have nothing to forgive. And there is nothing for me to be bitter about. I spoke on the issue as a Clinician (PhD, ABPP) who treated victims of child sexual abuse, some of them 20 or even 30 years after the abuse took place.
Separately I am also a lawyer (JD) who defend folks WEONGFULLY ACCUSED of the heinous crime.
Get some education - at a minimum learn to read - before you reply/respond to comments. You are quite impressive as self-confessed idiot .
Rest assured I have a clean slate on the crime of child molestation, the subject of this DiA article .
How far OFF-TOPIC do you want to take your pretend can't read moronic act, Sir/Madam/Ms, just so you get to ad hominem attack someone you know nothing about, and in so doing, feel as if you have acted "Chirstian" enough to speak for your Church? Is that what they teach you to do in your particular Christian Church? I have many many Christian friends. None of them do that.
I didn't bring up the sins I have committed. You did. As an ad hominem attack on me. So you have to finish it. Sir/Madam/Ms. This is how it works it public discourse.
IN the comment you presumably replied to, I wrote to make known, as a clinician, the far reaching psychological damage to a human being who was sexually molested as a child, which all the cases in the Roman Catholic Church were, and most of the "chosen ones" were altar boys or choir boys.
You entered the discussion thread pretending you didn't get what I wrote.
I am not interested in comparing who sinned more and who sinned less. That is a full-time obsession of a certain sort of Christians of whom Christ diapproved. You also clearly demonstrated in what you wrote you care more about the skin of the perpetrator as a member of your Church, while NOT ONE IOTA about the life-long suffering of the victims, some of whom turned into pedophiles themselves, perpetrating the line of perversion in human behavior. SO much for what you exemplify as a spokesperson for the Church.
It is not my job to change you. How holy or not holy you are is between you and your own "Christian" faith.
It is my business when you publicly state, AS A PRESUMED FACT, that I committed more sins than Cardinal Law. Did you parents or teachers or priests in Church teach you anything about the rudimentaries regarding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in public discourse?
Yeh well the fool knows nothing. Can never know anything.
They are all children of Satan. I mean that in a “clinical” (measured, thinking thru the consequences of their attitude) sense.
This is the very sin (falling short of the target) that Law perpetrated.
"The cardinal did not abuse any one himself." He did far worse: he protected abusers, and allowed them to go on abusing children.
"Law was wrong to hide bad guys but he has repented...". How do you know that? Because he said "I am sorry", like any crook caught with his hand in the till? Because he may have gone to confession and received absolution? Ask the children, now grown-ups, whether they have forgiven; theirs is the only forgiveness that matters.
You don't want people to judge you for supporting institutions that support literal child rapists...
If the pomp burial pains you it means you've not forgiven the cardinals inefficiency in managing his unsolicited pedophile squad. The damage done by the pedophiles to the kids can never be healed pomp burial or not. Just make sure all pedophiles are sacked from the ministry but unfortunately you cannot know them until they act. Perhaps you think you understand the issue better than Pope Francis. If we do not know what God thinks then there is no morals because God is the measure of morality. If there is no afterlife and final judgement, then as long as I am stronger than you (financially, physically, intellectually, etc) and can dodge the civil law, I'll keep using you as an object, until I'm caught. There is no difference between the church and its congregants just as there is no difference between US and american citizens, they're mixtures of the good, bad and ugly. Opinions vary but the leaders decide on the best course of action. We've to trust them else anarchy results. To bury a human being no matter past actions is always humanly and divinely acceptable. Keep trying to forgive, it's possible.
I don't believe in an afterlife. However, if there is one, I hope Law burns in hell.
I am also critical of the catholic church which is an organization that promotes sexism (no women priests), homophobia, and pedophilia. How are they allowed to continue?
You don't believe in the afterlife, but still feel you can accurately represent the true views of a Church you then actually have nothing to do with. A cover up of pedophilia is in no way a "promotion" of it, and homosexuality is not, of itself, feared by any reasonable person in the Church (Roy Moore is not Catholic by any stretch).
The Church does however ask all people to make an edifying use of the sexual urges that they inevitably feel, which means different things for different stations (married couples, the betrothed, same-sex lovers). The Act of Love between a couple of different sexes is seen as God's way of bringing new life into the world and calls for deep respect of this. This is not to suggest that enjoyment of sex is in any way wrong, far from it, but if that is as far as it goes for you, you are missing a lot.
Lol, my God, so much ignorance here, lol. Where are you coming from? "the catholic church which is an organization that promotes sexism (no women priests), homophobia, and pedophilia", lol. Give me a break, go study a bit of history of the catholic church.
You're missing the point actually. This is not about what is or isn't sexually ok between couples. As far as this issue is concerned this is about children being taken advantage of, sexually abused. Not about gay marriage, it's not about gay couples, it's not about two adults. This is about children who have been taken advantage of, their innocence stolen, and people like you still go to church & support them religiously. If you would open your eyes and understand, that it's not about a sexual act. That it's about a criminal act. Each and every freakin one of them including this man is a pedophile. They should be held accountable. Do you really think these men should not be held accountable ? They are human yes so they know right from wrong, just because they chose to become a preacher does not mean that they are good people. They tell you how to think, what you should believe, and really I cannot believe that so many Americans fall for this and allow it to continue. Too many innocent people have been wrongly accused of this very same thing and are in prison right now. This is swept under the rug. Why? What makes them so special that they are above the law? It's just my opinion but ignorance is the problem in most Americans.
I am sorry, I thought the point you were making was that the Church "promotes" pedophilia. Maybe that's why I "missed" it.
It is clear to everyone that abusing children is a CRIME, but I would suggest that is is a SEXUAL crime. The sex drive, and its sublimation, is what is behind a lot of violence and torture perpetrated against children, minorities, the disadvantaged etc. etc. in the world. It is powerful, and identifies the person in his or her most intimate being and characterises all behaviour. None of us is neuter.
One thing that does appear to be true is that the Church, which has a tradition of secret (and open actually, too) confession has been neglectful (and this in itself is complicity) towards the way that a certain number of persons with pedophile proclivities have entered the ranks for the opportunities offered for the kind of contacts they sought. A number of evil-doers gravitate to the Dark Net. This was the Dark Net ante literam. And resoundigly YES, to your contention that they should be accountable,
"A cover up of pedophilia is in no way a 'promotion' of it" -- except of course that the pedophile is free to do it again, and again, just in another parish; that cover up did not 'promote' pedophilia, it just 'condoned' it.
Why are there so many pro-pedophilia folks in the TE comments?
Pope Francis did what he believed to be the right thing ... for pedophile priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, etc.
When a religion prohibits its 'representatives' to have sexual intercourse, a most natural thing for normal humans, there is something wrong with that religion.
The Roman Church (Catholicism) had and continues to have a rather embarrassing history - from a merciless persecutor, to a demented torturer and murderer (Inquisition, etc.) all the way to the perverse sexual rape of innocent children.
In spite of all that, there are more than a billion 'faithful' (?) Catholics and Pope Francis must play up to them ... or else leave the Throne of Saint Peter free for another Cardinal to sit on it. What choice does he have?
So the 1 billion people who watch internet porn are all prohibited from having sexual intercourse? All those men who sleep with prostitutes every night are prohibited from having sexual intercourse? All those executives who harass women in their offices are prohibited too? Give me a break!
Please try again but in English, is possible. And, yes, try to put your ideas, if you have any, in a way that humble people like myself can understand. Thank you!
The reality is that the Church chooses to ordain men whose vocation is more towards following Jesus (in celibacy) than taking on family commitments. It's not an imposition on "its representatives". It is a choice. We know that certain if not all the apostles were married men (Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law) but conflicts arose between divided spirits that counselled adoption of priestly celibacy later.
It can be undone of course, and may happen in some of our lifetimes.
However, celibates are not more likely to abuse children (but they may visit prostitutes or have illicit affairs), and remedium concupiscintiae has no relevance at all.
Ok. I'll try again. The article is about the pompous burial of a Bishop who covered up priests that were sexually abusing kids, right? Ok. Then you wrote that "when a religion prohibits its representatives to have sexual intercourse, a most natural thing for normal humans, there is something wrong with that religion". So I made the following deduction: priests abuse kids because they are sex-starved. If they did have enough sex there'll not be kid abuse. But we have the fact that porn viewers are not sex-starved (visit youtube and look up the number of times sex videos are watched). Now do you consider viewing porn a good thing? Surely no, are they people doing it sex-starved? nope. I'm sure you've done it several times though you are not sex-starved. Also married men still go to prostitutes. It seems as if sexual activeness creates more desire than abstaining totally. If you do not know what sex is, you'll not miss it. Then you have top executes in several relationships yet the abuse their female workers and they are not sex-starved either. The kid-predator priests were already bad men that manage to deceive the authorities and got ordained. It has nothing to do with sex-starvation.
"conflict arose between divided spirits that counselled adoption of priestly celibacy later" -- Correct me if I am wrong, I think I read somewhere that the purpose of priestly celibacy was to remove the temptation to embezzle Church money and property to benefit the priests' children. If that is true, it sure backfired!
"So I made the following deduction: priests abuse kids because they are sex-starved", or is it that priests abuse kids because they know they can get away with it?
Celibacy (and virginity/continence) have been chosen by the devout all through history, and in the Christian tradition, at least form the fourth centrury seeen as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."
Your citation seems to be somewhat partisan.
"Your citation seems to be somewhat partisan." Which comment are you replying to?
In one comment, I was just quoting what Ilora wrote and added a question.
In the other I just mentioned the fact that, in its first centuries, the Catholic Church allowed priests to be married. They changed the rules later on. These rules have nothing to do with the personal choices or beliefs of the faithful, just the Church's official policy: in the first centuries, priests could be married; later on, they could not. The reason, I read, was to prevent priests from using church property to enrich their relatives and children. Is that correct or not?
I was referring to your comment of wordly wealth in the Church. I had not come across it though the Medicis and the Borgias did use the Chuch for personal endrichment in medioeval Italy. There were papal concubines at the time.
However, in the rule of St Benedict (480 - 547 CE) for the monastic life the saint requires (still today) vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience (from monks, for priests only the Chastity one applies). The tradition is very deeply rooted, aand much thought has surrounded the issue for a long, long time.
I found your comment partisan because it seem ed directed at a very small area of concern.
I am not a Catholic but have held Pope Francis in high regard. This gives me a pause. Was he under some political pressure to lead and participate in this abetter of pedophiles and child rapists? I know the papacy requires a high degree of political savvy, but I wish he would have stepped up and shown leadership by saying no. Bernard Law deserves no accolades or forgiveness.
Sadly, I agree.
Pomp and circumstance in the Church's rituals is one thing.
Regard and respect for the individuals who are the surviving victims and their affected loved ones is another.
This is truly in human terms a disgrace.
Law was a Prince of the Church. That is not a title I would want but there it is.
A plain, dignified interment, attended by close friends, would have been apt. That Francis went this route leads me to believe that he was messaging the clergy: "Don't get too discouraged. This will all blow over and, in the meantime, I will keep the aspidistra flying."
There is, we are told, more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repents then there is over one good soul that resists temptation. Seems a little unfair but I am not about to question what Jesus says. The charitable thing is to assume that Law died wishing he had done better by those under his care and, at the end, prayed for both his enemies and His Holiness.
But, the accompanying photo looks a little like one of those Mob funerals where the surviving hoodlums can't spend enough on Big Al's send-off.
Cast ye not, the first stone!
"Bernard Law deserves no accolades or forgiveness". Thank God you are not God else all of us will rot in hell, lol. Do you remember the thief crucified with Jesus? Do you remember the woman caught in adultery? When Jesus told the accusers he or she who has no sin should throw the first stone. JYK98, I ask you, are you without sin? Is it because you've not been caught? If we scrutinize your life, are we not going to find secrets you would prefer that they rather remain hidden? Pope Francis does not need your regard, you are not God. He only needs God's regard. And God has said forgive 70*7 times. Keep in mind that Law is accused of hiding sinners. He himself was did not abuse anyone. Have you ever asked yourself why he decided to hide his bad eggs? Perhaps to protect the good eggs. There are many good priests but the bad ones have given them a bad name.