[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Loving all the little children (click to view)
Date: April 8, 2010
The Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI have been facing a renewed round of criticism lately over that sadly all-too-familar and all-too-persistant phenomenon within the Catholic faith: pedophile priests.

Among the most egregious recent allegations, many are now charging that the Pope himself, during his pre-papal career as a bishop and cardinal, displayed a chronically lax approach to dealing with such known offenders. In 1980 a sex-offender priest was re-located to Ratzinger's diocese, a fact which the future pope was apparently indifferent — until he offended again, at which point he was finally fired.

Then there was the high-profile case of a molester priest at a Wisconsin Catholic school for the deaf, who also ended up being re-located under Ratzinger's watch, rather than defrocked. Ratzinger also instituted new Vatican rules in 2001 calling for suspected abuse cases to be reported to his Rome office directly, in what critics have characterized as a deliberate attempt to sideline the rule of "secular authorities" (ie, the police).

A huge component of Benedict's clerical career has been devoted to the proper care and maintenance of the Church's elaborate internal bureaucratic systems. And indeed, the Pope has maintained that an underlying root cause of the entire pedophile problem is that the existing Church procedures for discipline and dismissal are not being followed correctly by the lower levels of the hierarchy. This was the case he made in a much-publicized apology to Irish Catholics earlier this year.

The problem, of course, is that there is not always a clear logical correlation between "following proper Church procedures" and "reacting in a common-sense manner."

[Arcanite]

I find the commentary about Benedict's focus on the structure of the Church itself fascinating. Perhaps because I haven't read a lot into this recently.

I'm just happy I don't have to look at Obama's hairdo every time I visit this page. It reminds me too much of the writhing, pulsating egg sack of a termite queen. Beautiful artistic imagery JJ!

[FuzzlyFerret]

JJ, I'm afraid you're buying into the MSM narrative about exactly how this crisis actually came down.

First off, trying to connect all of these cases and place them at then-Cardinal Ratzinger's feet is a huge stretch that belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how Church organization actually works. The Vatican is not some kind of monolithic octopus whose tentacles extend into every aspect of church governance everywhere, but rather individual dioceses and archdioceses are expected to manage their own affairs, including the appointment (and removal) of priests.

Secondly, the present Pope has actually done a lot of work making sure that abusive priests are removed much more quickly. In 2002, when he was still Head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then-Cardinal Ratzinger initiated a series of reforms to streamline the process and ensure that accused priests would be given great scrutiny and investigation.

In any case, the Congregation didn't even have jurisdiction in the Murphy Case until it came to light that he had solicited during confession (it gained proper jurisdiction in the late 90's). Of course, this particular fact may illustrate problems with the church administration, but the point remains that trying to blame the current Pope (in some kind of twisted domino effect) for "failing to act" is ludicrous at best and sinister at worst.

Again, there is also confusion about whether or not priests were 'fired'. The act of laicizing a priest (crudely known as 'defrocking') is something that generally happens only after a long canonical process for analogous reasons as to why criminal trials in the secular courts take so long. However, what the news articles /don't/ mention is that Fr. Murphy was removed from his ministry and basically placed under 'house arrest' when the allegations came to light decades ago. The News articles have been getting caught up in the symbolism of 'defrocking' vs. the actual substance of his being 'punished'.

I have some links that discuss the matter further. Yes, they're mostly Catholic sources and so may not fit people's definition of an 'unbiased' source, but I frankly believe that its much more well-informed than whatever AP and the NYT have to say.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000551.shtml Brief overview
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/what-to- ... evving-up/ (about the Arizona case, warning for polemic language)
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/card-lev ... roversies/
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601 (testimony from the priest who handled the Murphy Case, who wasn't contacted by the media for some reason)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... ile-crisis More on the Pope (a balanced article from the Guardian!)

[Dayseed]

The pedophilia is getting quite rampant. I had to move a rock to mow my lawn today and found a priest raping a kid underneath it.

[Psudo]

FuzzlyFerret wrote:

The Vatican is not some kind of monolithic octopus whose tentacles extend into every aspect of church governance everywhere

"Monolithic Octopus" would be a good name for a band.

FuzzlyFerret wrote:

Secondly, the present Pope has actually done a lot of work making sure that abusive priests are removed much more quickly. In 2002, when he was still Head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then-Cardinal Ratzinger initiated a series of reforms to streamline the process and ensure that accused priests would be given great scrutiny and investigation.

Can you describe the resulting streamlined process to us? In general or for this specific case, either way it would help us non-Catholics understand what's going on a little better.

For those who aren't interested in reading those very long links, this seems to be a good summary:

The Arizona Case wrote:

* [The priest] was suspended.
* There was a canonical trial.It was referred to Rome, the CDF, because it concerned a case of the confessional.
* It was determined that he should be dismissed from the clerical state.
* The priest appealed.
* The appeal process was drawn out for several years because the laws and canonical process of these clerical cases was being overhauled.
* Card. Ratzinger was the one who led the charge for the changes to streamline the process.
* When the new procedures went into effect, the Holy See moved swiftly to dismiss him from the clerical.
* Once again this is a case of lawyers for victims who gave the documents (obviously incomplete) to the Associated Press.

As much as society hates pedophiles, we have to admit we hate lawyers, too. The story of exaggeration by prosecutors rings rather true.

[Quantum_Wizard]

I think the number of these cases would probably drop if the Catholic Church allowed it's priests to marry.

[IlovUSandCanada]

Quote:

I think the number of these cases would probably drop if the Catholic Church allowed it's priests to marry.

How so? Do you hear uproars about priests having sex with women? No. This is a problem of priests having sex with children. How would that be helped if they were married?

[Quantum_Wizard]

IlovUSandCanada wrote:

Quote:

I think the number of these cases would probably drop if the Catholic Church allowed it's priests to marry.

How so? Do you hear uproars about priests having sex with women? No. This is a problem of priests having sex with children. How would that be helped if they were married?

Marriage would provide sexual relief. Unless their sexual desires are irreversibly and exclusively directed at children, of course. But I don't think that's the case every time.

[IlovUSandCanada]

Quote:

Marriage would provide sexual relief. Unless their sexual desires are irreversibly and exclusively directed at children, of course. But I don't think that's the case every time.

... If they wanted to have sex with women, why wouldn't they simply have sex with women?

I find it somewhat ludicrous to say that because they are repressed they target children. People who are sexually repressed don't have sex with children, not if they aren't attracted to children.

[DerbyX]

IlovUSandCanada wrote:

Quote:

Marriage would provide sexual relief. Unless their sexual desires are irreversibly and exclusively directed at children, of course. But I don't think that's the case every time.

... If they wanted to have sex with women, why wouldn't they simply have sex with women?

I find it somewhat ludicrous to say that because they are repressed they target children. People who are sexually repressed don't have sex with children, not if they aren't attracted to children.

Well the question is why is this prevalent among catholic priests but not among protestant padres or jewish rabbis, 2 groups who allow marriage.

It cannot be a coincidence.

[IlovUSandCanada]

Quote:

Well the question is why is this prevalent among catholic priests but not among protestant padres or jewish rabbis, 2 groups who allow marriage.It cannot be a coincidence.

Maybe it is because there are less of them, or that they are less organized. But you have to agree, sexually repressed does not equal pedophilia. If they wanted sex, they could solicit prostitutes!

Besides, how many married pedophiles are there? Probably not a majority, but certainly enough to disprove that theory.

[DerbyX]

IlovUSandCanada wrote:

Quote:

Well the question is why is this prevalent among catholic priests but not among protestant padres or jewish rabbis, 2 groups who allow marriage.It cannot be a coincidence.

Maybe it is because there are less of them, or that they are less organized. But you have to agree, sexually repressed does not equal pedophilia. If they wanted sex, they could solicit prostitutes!

Besides, how many married pedophiles are there? Probably not a majority, but certainly enough to disprove that theory.

Sorry but claiming that catholics have more priests does not erase the fact that its almost always catholic priests getting picked up for pedophilia. % wise they lose big time.

As for claiming that they only want sex and therefore the abuse well you are both confirming my point and illustrating it. Consider that they likely see less chance getting caught by abusing young boys, whom they have far greater access to, then prostitutes.

Can you provide a reason why its almost always catholic priests?

[Psudo]

DerbyX: Can you provide proof that "its almost always catholic priests"? I imagine Catholic priests get more publicity, but some small sect with, say, 10 members and one pedophilia scandal would be statistically much worse than Catholics. How can you be sure?

[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

DerbyX: Can you provide proof that "its almost always catholic priests"?

Do you hear about protestant padres or jewish rabbis doing this?

Do you believe this is a conspiracy?

[Psudo]

No. I believe it's a juicy news story and, thus, gets disproportionate attention. Similarly, I doubt pretty white girls go missing more often than any other demographic, but they get more media attention.