The Sins of the Father

Published on July 17, 2007 By Dr Guy In Religion

One of our esteemed members decided to post an article concerning a religion where he stated:

I should comment that I am pretty much against the Catholic Church

Some of the reasons he stated are historical, if somewhat prejudicial, and are ones that the Church in the modern era has had to deal with in their quest to return to its roots - that of being a faith based, and not a political based organization. And some are an attempt to bestow upon an fallible organization a measure of perfection that does not exist in this world. And still others are a gross mis-interpretation of a teaching that many do not understand, yet continue to decry and denounce in their ignorance.

Let us look at these three different aspects of these accusations.

The first is easy enough to identify. They deal with Historical facts. The inquisition, the heresy of Galileo, and the Crusades. All of these are historical facts, that are undeniable. And to deny them would be akin to denying the holocaust. But they are historical. The implication in the linked article is that since these were done in the name of the Church, then all descendants must bear the shame of those forefathers. That those descendants must renounce their faith, because the Church (not the faith) is imperfect and has done evil. They are guilty, because their ancestors are guilty. And not even necessarily their ancestors, but the acquaintances of some of their ancestors.

It matters not that the descendants have apologized for those deeds. It matters not that the descendants have repudiated the deeds. It matters only that those deeds were committed by the fathers, and thus the sins must be visited upon the children.

Now we come to the point where this faith based organization must know not only all that has been, but all that will be. In 1933, the Church signed a concordat with a sovereign nation stating they would get out of Politics. Something they had been in since Constantine back during the Roman Empire. Something they were never meant to be. And something they should never have been. And yet, into the 20th century, they were still involved with the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire. So they got out. By signing an agreement with the government of Germany. At the time, a democratically elected government whose primary concerns were not with ruling the world (that would come later), but in getting the country out of the worst depression they had ever seen.

While this was a mistake, at the time, no one knew the evil that was to occur under the new leadership of Germany. But we are to believe, again, that this is a heinous crime. And the crime was in not being omniscient. They should have known that the evil was to come, and never signed the agreement, and that they did sign it before the evil was perpetrated upon the world, is irrelevant. For they must be omniscient. Because people say they are.

And because they signed this agreement, then all the works of the Catholics throughout Europe, those who sacrificed their lives for the persecuted, was just a dog and pony show. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. hey! They must have been pretending.

Finally we come to modern day deeds. Yes, what WE do today WE are responsible for. At least in most circles. But what did the Church do in the current day? There are 2 charges.

One: The participation in the genocide in Rwanda by priests and nuns,

Two: Hundreds of years (no kidding or exaggeration) of tacitly permitting the sexual abuse of parishioners, specifically including children, by priests

That is right. The church and all 1.1 billion members participated in the genocide in Rwanda. And not another soul in the world did so. Nope, none of the other 5 billion people participated, just the 1 billion Catholics. And how did they participate? How many people were killed by Catholics? Well, that gets kind of murky, since even the author does not indicate that a single Catholic raised up arms against the Hutus and Tutsis. NO, the only allegation is that they did nothing. But the other 5 billion people sure did a lot, right? They sure stopped the massacre from happening! I remember well, the brigades of Americans (non-catholic of course), Israelis, English, French, and Germans marching in there to stop this slaughter. I remember it very well. Maybe you do as well?

But not the Catholics. Not a single Catholic sacrificed their lives for that massacre.

And the pedophilia? Yep! A crime that did not exist prior to it being discovered in the church, and what is even better, would not exist were it not for the church. And its 1 billion members! That is right! You heard it here first! The Church, and its 1 billion members are all pedophiles, or so we are to believe. Because only Catholics are pedophiles, and they must all be because we have found some priests that are.

Forget those men behind the curtain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

Forget the hundreds of instances where headlines have blared that "This teacher and that teacher" is convicted of it (they must all be Catholics too). Forget all the felons rotting in jail (they are all Catholics too). Just concentrate on the 13,000 charges (not all proven yet - except the fact they are Catholics) in the last 50 odd years against those evil Catholics. Do away with those Catholics, and problem solved! You do not need to worry about any one else!

No way is it possible that perhaps those inclined to pedophilia are attracted to occupations that put them in contact with children. No, all those teachers are Catholics, all those Felons are Catholics, and all those Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imams are really Catholics in disguise. Problem solved. The final solution is to kill all the Catholics.

Then we have this statement: When Ratzinger was a Cardinal, he helped conceal the severity of the problem. And this is the man that has the audacity to say that you are "wounded" in your beliefs if you do not acknowledge him?

Yes, the author now is an expert on theology, and knows more about interfaith dialog than any one else. So he can now state the intent and reason for the claim of "wounded" irregardless of its context: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288976,00.html

Let just pretend again that the Pope (who is all Catholics after all), is again saying that, now not only all Muslims are evil (Exact quote from Manuel Il Paleologus, a Byzantine Emperor, not a pope):

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

Since he quotes a historical text to a CLASS on theology, he must have originated the quote, and firmly believes in it. Just like the statement he re-released recently that the experts in the media took to be a slam on protestant churches, instead of what it was. A re-statement of a working paper for the reconciliation of all Christian faiths. "The wound" that is talked about is reflected in the Popes belief that his faith is the right one. But as we can guess from these wanna-bee Theological experts in the mainstream media and elsewhere, ONLY Catholics believe that. All other people of faith must then believe that their faith is not the right one, and they are just waiting on a street corner for a bus to come along with a better one.

I guess we have 5 billion people that just cant wait to find a better creed and faith.

And finally we get to the last item. One corrected so many times, it truly boggles the mind that people would continue to perpetrate it. I guess some just love to revel in their ignorance instead of trying to discern the truth, or even seeking it. Even worse, when presented with the truth, they chose to ignore it, because ignorance is so much more fun. But for the record:

Pope ... ....always correct and infallible...

Is incorrect. The pope is only infallible when he goes Ex-cathedra, which means speaking for the faithful, and that has occurred only twice in the last 500 years. All the other times, he is speaking as the leader of the faithful - much like Bush speaks for all Americans (ha ha). He is the head teacher, as the role of priest has its roots in the Jewish faith, and that of the Rabbi - which means teacher, his words carry more weight than the other teachers and the students. But last I checked, no teacher is right all the time, and no man is either. And the Pope, outside of his role as head teacher, is just that. A man.

So please, slam those 1 billion plus Catholics for all these sins. We can even make a special place for them, since they are all evil and do only evil. But at least get your facts right when you are marching them to the gallows.

Comments (Page 3)

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2007

All a bunch of statements and questions that have no real answers and mean different things to different people.

It's amazing the degree people let their lives be directed as well as influenced by these things.

If you mean no answers based in empirical data, you are right. FOr is that not what the definition of faith? Even Atheists have faith. Their faith is in their belief (again - no way to prove otherwise) that no deity exists. And it is that faith that guides their actions. SO I would not call it amazing so much as it is human nature.

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2007

a quote from George Burns, "too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair."

One of the great quotes. But most, even those who do not beleive in a deity, still acknowledge learning from higher sources. Usually experts in their respective fields. And most knowledge even for those who are not atheists comes from their fellow man. And in that, we are always children of learning.

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2007

Thank you Dr Guy for writing this article. I'm glad that certain claims made against the Church are being addressed and refuted.

Not necessarily refuted, as I fully admit I do not have all the facts on issues like the Genocide of Rwanda. But I have a big problem with singling out one people for blame for something that, while they may or may not (thanks to Contego for bringing some additional facts to light on it) have had a role, either passive or active in it, were not responsible for the genocide and in reality share it with a great number of people. Just as the pedophelia issue is not the sole responsibility of the Church either. Although in both those cases there is ample blame to place on some of the professors of the faith the crimes listed.

I was hoping to make 2 points with this. One, that condemning an entire people for the sins of the few is what led to the Holocaust, and is equally abhorant to do to any peoples, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or creed. And the second is that while we can and must address the sins of the few within the faith of the Catholic church, we must not let that blind us to the sins of all the people performing those crimes - which is what I see happening now that the Church if finally bringing the crimes to light.

The abolition of the Church (not stated here or in the related article - but implied) will not make the Genocide of Rwanda or the crime of pedophelia go away. For they are not sins of the Faith, but of men. And cross all faiths and creeds.

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2007

By the way, Barring homosexuals isn't going to solve any churches problem. What they need to do is dump the abusers, and the bishops that moved these abusers around the church, and any cardinals who approved of the bishops dealings. They also need to get on the side of the law and prosecute these abusers who have both damaged these peoples lives and the sacredness of the church.

First, barring homosexuals is not a legal issue. It is an issue of faith. Second, you are right the abusers need to be culled, but the Chruch is not a legal entity, so the prosecution must be left (with the cooperation of the Heirarchy - the body is already cooperating) to the state.

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2007

if the church believes the problem is sexual orientation, a few more generations will become prey instead of learning to pray. predator priests are pedophiles. those who choose to molest boys are no better nor worse than those who molest girls.

I suppose some do believe it is a function of celibacy, but most behavior scientists have stated that it is not a function of the rules of the priesthood, but a predisposition that is not unique to the Priesthood. They are no better than molestors of girls, and we see daily where it is not solely a Catholic thing. And that is why I made the statement (backed up by some of the "experts") that those disposed to that behavior seek out occupations that will enable them to carry out that behavior.

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2007

We don't have a pedophile crisis in the Chruch; it's a homosexual one

No, it is a Pedophelia one. It is not limited to young boys (although within the Church they do get the most press), but to children in general. ANd it is not limited to the Priesthood (but again that is what is getting the press).

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2007

I think that religion is the natural (moral) and supernatural bond, a relationship that binds us to God. Everyone of us has the natural religion written on his heart--that is the power which prompts man to be good and to do good for the honor of the Supreme Good which is God Himself.

I see that as faith. I do not see faith as being not being able to eat meat on Fridays - that is religion.

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2007

(Citizen)kingbee
July 27, 2007 01:21:54

Reply 29

That pretty well sums up my belief in the issue of Pedophelia. And while I repsect the Pope for many things, I think he is wrong if he is calling this a homosexual crises. It is a pedophelia problem, and while less prevalent in the priesthood, the molestation of girls is a part of the problem and more prevalent in other vocations.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 27, 2007

kingbee posts:

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

source

There is a paragraph about one-third of the way down of the source you cited under "other sexual abuse" which makes my point. The facts show the clerical sex abuse scandal involved mainly adolescent and teen boys, not pre-pubescent boys and girls (pedophilia). The Church has a homosexual priest problem and to call it pedophilia is insulting the intelligence of anyone who has access to a dictionary. My copy of the Merck Manual defines pedophilia as repetitive sexual activity with pre-pubescent children and ususally involves heterosexuals who've had psyschchological and emotional disorders from youth.

Homosexuals and their advocates in the media are perpetuating this disengenuous notion by intentionally misnaming the problem as priest pedophiles when the ages of most of the victims were 12-16 or young teens and the men who are sexually abusing them are homosexuals.

I worked at a Catholic school library during this time and while attending a "protecting our children" mandatory workshop the topic concerning homosexual and heterosexual sex abuse was discussed. We were given all kinds of studies.

You know, Kingbee, your statement is statistically incorrect, horribly misleading and wrong. It's wrong because our children's physical and mental safety and health is dependent upon our correct understanding of the full extent of child abuse, and by golly, that includes homosexual abuse whihc can never be overlooked, winked at or diminished in any way especially when the mandate is protecting God's children.

Proportionality is the key to understanding that most sexual abusers are homosexual. Look up "Crafting Gay Children" a study by Dr. Judith Reisman. "Study after study has yielded estimates of male homosexuality that range between 1% and 3% of the population. So overall, perhaps 2% of adults regularly engage in homosexuality. Yet they account for between 20% and 40% of all moltestations of children. Dr. Reisman says that homosexuals are 40 times more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals.

These numbers demolish the often repeated falsehood that heterosexuals are more apt to prey on children. Using figures of a 1991 population study by the US DEPT. of Commerce, she investigated heterosexual men's crimes against girls and homosexual men's crimes against boys. The data showed that heterosexual men molested 8 million girls girls for a ration of 1 victim for every 11 adult males. The one to two million adult homosexual men molested 6-8 million boys--a ratio of 3 to 5 victims for every adult homosexual male.

kingbee

on Jul 28, 2007

to call it pedophilia is insulting the intelligence of anyone who has access to a dictionary. My copy of the Merck Manual defines pedophilia as repetitive sexual activity with pre-pubescent children and ususally involves heterosexuals who've had psyschchological and emotional disorders from youth

clearly i've been less than precise, i apologize and applaud you for calling me on it. i was aware of the distinction. accurate terminology is, in fact, provided in the article from which i excerpted my previous quote. i should have also included this but didn't in the interest of brevity.

for the record:

A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.

Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

The distinction a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

to keep this from becoming too confusing, here's the portion i provided earlier:

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

Other Approaches

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

i may be suffering yet another bout of not-that-early-onset senility severe enough to impair comprehension because i see nothing here that supports your contention.

according to the article i've been quoting:

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Zydor

on Jul 28, 2007

I thought long and hard before typing this. In many ways its like watching King Canute about to be engulfed in the inevitable wave to follow. Lets be clear about a few things:

I hate the Catholic Church - nope, I have the highest regard for its values and the example it attempts to set

Then you hate the Church in general - nope, repeat comment above adding a rider 'providing its not a "church" setup by a lunatic fringe seeking self grandisement'

Then you ridicule God and all He achieves and stands for (etc) - nope, but don’t ask me to say "well done" either as I do not believe in a Supreme Deity

There it is, you are prejudice and blind to The Truth and The True Way - nope, whilst I do not believe in a Supreme Deity, I do believe in the values and standards that "The Church" (of all the various Christian faiths) put forward as a sensible common decency standard in carrying out one's life. Hardly anti-church and rabid prejudice.

Ok having got that stupid defensive nonsense out the way, now my main point.

Its happened, smoke and mirrors will not make it go away, nor will defensive spin verging on self denial make it go away. Nor will the classic "Please Miss they are doing it as well", make it go away.

For most of the general Public, there is a simple truth. The Church in general is held in a high regard and acknowledged for its stance, in general terms, on moral values etc. But, there comes a tipping point when many will begin to say "can it really still be the case?". The reason maybe grossly unfair, even widely inaccurate, hard luck, the Church is deservedly the acknowledged Leader on these values - Leaders must be Whiter than White and be seen to be setting an example or watch out. Life is unfair deal with it. The only way the Church will deal with this to the Publics satisfaction, and therefore preserve its deserved reputation, is to meet it head on, acknowledge the errors, and far far more important Do something about it. It has ignored the problem, or at best dealt with it inadequately, for arguably hundreds of years. It can no longer do the latter with impunity, neither can any institution, The Church is not alone in "The Dock".

The Public are not interested in esoteric argument and self seeking justification. Whether or not that statement is fair or accurate is irrelevant, perception is all. If individuals are the kind to point self defense fingers at others in these situations, have a look and see where the remaining fingers on the hand are pointing.

You cannot even begin to understand how fervently I have fought for the preservation of the Church as an Institution, we need it as a vehicle for the promotion of common decency and good moral standards. You don’t have to believe in a Supreme Deity, which I don’t, to acknowledge the logic of that.

The Church, and even some individuals, must take Its head out of the sand, swallow Its lost pride, and understand most are willing for It to survive. But - time and time again, this defensive nonsense drowns common sense and the key issue at hand.

Debate all It likes over the esoteric side issues that It or individuals wish to put forward - some for sound good reason, some for bad.

The Jury is out on this one, I really do believe that for a large number of people this is now a tipping point, for good reason or bad, fair or foul, perception is all. There is no ducking it this time, modern communications and Media (for all their self evident faults) will not allow it to go unresolved. The message being sent from most people is loud and clear:

"Take your head out of the sand and deal with it over the next few years. If you don’t, we will intervene and do it for you"

If the latter happens, it will be desperately sad, to say the least - the Church cannot survive inaction over threats to our children, this is not the Middle Ages.

Regards
Zy

lulapilgrim

on Jul 28, 2007

KINGBEE POSTS:

according to the article i've been quoting:

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Reply 40 was excellent on the definitions.

Proportionality is the key to understanding the number of incidents of homosexual vs heterosexual molestation. We have sufficient data of those caught and convicted of molestation in the general population and homosexuals themselves have reported in nationwide surveys and studies. We know that male adult homosexuals make up about 2% of the general population and they account for between a fifth and 40% of all child predation.

It's time to stop mincing words and recognize that there never was a "pedophile" crisis in the Church, that the vast majority of cases of clerical sex abuse is adult male homosexual molestation of adolescent and teenage boys.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 28, 2007

ZYDOR POSTS:

Its happened, smoke and mirrors will not make it go away, nor will defensive spin verging on self denial make it go away. Nor will the classic "Please Miss they are doing it as well", make it go away.

Yes, "its" happened..and before "it" goes away, we (in the Church as well as in greater society) must first take our collective heads out of the politically correct and "tolerant" sand and fully recognize the sin and harmful consequences of approving and legitimizing homosexuality.

Zydor

on Jul 28, 2007

It's time to stop mincing words and recognize that there never was a "pedophile" crisis in the Church, that the vast majority of cases of clerical sex abuse is adult male homosexual molestation of adolescent and teenage boys.

Oh thats alright then, case solved, whats the fuss about.

For pitys sake.

And you wonder why people are turning away from mainstream Religions. It doesnt matter a damn if its six legged Aiens from another Galaxy, the issue is to stop the abuse.

Maybe one day the debate will shift to how we can prevent it, but I'm not holding my breath. I just hope the authorities external to the Church keep on top on the real issues, and concentrate on resolving the problem, not winning debating society points.

I will now back out of this pointless debate, its clear we have different views on what the real priorities are.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 28, 2007

ZYDOR POSTS:

Maybe one day the debate will shift to how we can prevent it, but I'm not holding my breath. I just hope the authorities external to the Church keep on top on the real issues, and concentrate on resolving the problem, not winning debating society points.

I've heard it said that the smoke of Satan entered the Church with the sexual revolution in the late 50's, early 60's. By the 70's and 80's, homosexuality had become rife in the seminaries. It's negative consequences effected everything in the Church (except the Latin Mass.) Satan used some bad priests and bishops to help destroy the Faith and the moral authority of the Church.

Before we can prevent something evil from occurring, we have to first recognize it and that's basically where I've been going in this discussion. Just as homosexuality is relevant to the spread of AIDS, it's relevant to the sex abuse scandal in the Church. The problem is one of homosexuality, not pedophilia although that's what the pro-homosexual movement and the major media have spun it as. The preventing (as you say) begins by stopping winking at sodomy to cover up for child molesters. Removing all accused and known abusers and barring homosexuals from the priesthood is a prudent part of the solution.

Another is reform that is in line with Tradition and orthodoxy and it seems that, too,is finally underway.

As far as having outside public authorities handling the wrong-doers in the Church who molest children, I'm in lockstep with you on that. Over the years, I've written many a letter to various Church officials telling them so. It used to be that if a parent suspected priestly wrong-doing, they complained to his bishop. Not anymore...they are told to call the police.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!