The systemic sexual abuse of children has been the Catholic Church's dirty little secret for centuries. It was not until these horrors began to be taken seriously by the media and prosecutors that the church expressed any remorse. Given the scale of the problem and the relatively small size of the clergy, there is simply no way Church hierarchy was unaware of the problem. They just circled the wagons, protected the priests, and vilified their victims. In light of their history, I can't help but think the Church's remorse has a lot more to do with having to pay out this money than any actual concern for the victims. No one actually needs religion in order to be a good person, and if humanity is to have any chance of long term survival, it is going to have to free itself from the yoke of religion.
I remember reading--don't remember where--that child sex abuse is mentioned in the first extant document we have that mentions christian clergy. Apparently, a small fragment, about the size of a credit card, tentatively dated late second century, says that a christian clergyman had raped a freeborn Roman boy. We don't know the source (legal complaint? somebody's private letter? something else?) and the dating is tentative (too small a fragment for absolute, thus destructive, dating). But, if it's true, that indicates that the christians have been committing this crime for longer than 1700 years. I'm a bit of a history/archaeology nerd and would like to know if anyone has heard of this--or is it just an urban legend?
It doesn't ring a bell but from what I remember of Roman culture at that time, the crime wouldn't have been the rape itself but assaulting someone with a superior social status.
Well, there were rules about superior/inferior social status (freeborn, freedman/woman, enslaved), and underage freeborn boys and girls enjoyed the most protection, legally speaking. They didn't consider a master raping an enslaved person to be a big deal, but a freeborn Roman boy? Big, big deal! That's why I'm wondering about the source.
I believe you when you say it's something you read, but if you are like me, you probably have read numerous books and magazines that may not be available for free online.
And the state of my library! JesusFuckingChrist--it could have been anywhere! A lot of my books/pamphlets/articles (etc etc) are super out of print, or were published in local papers--that sort of thing. Some people may think the Internet Is All, but believe me, it isn't. I do remember reading this somewhere, but damned if I can remember where, or even when. That's what happens when somebody has 70+ years worth of memories knocking about in the noggin.
It Dianne is right about the datation, in Italy legally it would have been the freeborn roman boy. Sadly, places where christianity was more established (Gaule and North Africa) it would have been a 50/50 on who belonged to the richest/noblest family.
And, likely, punishment (or lack thereof) would have reflected that. Not a historian here, but that's one reason that sources matter. Of course, later on, post-4th century, xtian clergy or adherents could, and did, get away with anything, no matter how heinous.
Impressive. Altogether, the Diocese of Los Angeles is laying out over $1.3 billion in recompense to victims of child sex abuse. That will put one hell of a twist into the Catholic Church's finances, I would expect ... but I still have to ask:
𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗬 𝗣𝗥𝗜𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗦 𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗗???
Fact is: the Church still has gobs of money stashed away, and they have yet to pay any kind of PERSONAL toll for the abuses their people subjected children to. That mealy-mouthed apology that Gomez offered is an indicator that this is water off the duck's back to them.
And I am convinced that until the PEOPLE of the Catholic Church are PERSONALLY and not just financially held responsible for those crimes, the abuse will go on. 𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑎 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒.
This is what I've been talking about for entirely too damned long. I STILL want to know why Bernard Cardinal Law wasn't ARRESTED in Boston and held accountable for the events which were reported in the Boston Globe and dramatized in the movie, Spotlight. Just HOW did he get out? WHY was he allowed to get out?
And how much more of this has to go on before people recognize that religion and faith are the oldest, largest, and most pernicious con on the face of this planet?
I just watched Spotlight again last month! It's a damn fine movie, and I'm surprised the Catholic public didn't react to it more. I mean, when Dogma came out, they were rabbling in the streets against it. Spotlight... crickets and tumbleweeds.
Even when they are arrested amd judged, there are assholes who will free them on an alleged technicality that wouldn't apply to anyone but a priest*. Fuck them all.
So the LA Diocese just had about a billion dollars lying around ready to spend on any old thing that happened to come down the road? Meanwhile, little old Catholic grandmas are going without food so they can keep up their donations to beloved Mother Church. Truly, this is an example of God's hand at work in the world!
According to the RCC, women aren't people and therefore no consideration would be needed. The grandmas you mention should, in their worldview, be suffering for the sins of Eve anyway.
Almost as horrifying as the fact that the Church has to settle with SA victims (again), is the fact that they have access to $880 Million to pay the victims. Adding up the amounts of the previous settlements, the total is $2,288 Billion. That money is not going to follow the Christian mission of feeding the poor, housing the unhoused, or comforting the sick.
Add this to your consideration: The Mormon Church has $100 billion salted away in what has been called a "hedge fund." I suspect they used a portion of that to bolster the effort to pass California Proposition 8, against the LGBTQ community.
These and other churches have garnered entirely too much money and power and influence to be tolerable to this country. They need to be TAXED and taxed HARD.
The Mormons accumulated that much of a cash reserve after less than two centuries of the con. The RCC has had 17+. How many 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 do they have stashed?
It is far past time we listened to FDR's words and DID something about it. Between the megachurches and the mega-billionaires, the authority of the United States government is under threat, and I don't see a whole lot of difference between the churches and the billionaires, as it comes to that.
Don’t forget the land investments across the USA, they’re one of the largest landowners, if not the largest, in the US. Then there’s their businesses. I feel like they have more money than all the other religions put together.
The fact that they can 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘺 access that kind of money 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 shows just where their true priorities lie. Money and power, power and money, and lip service to "helping the less fortunate".
I grew up in the ghetto and I remember going to Catholic mass when they would take up a second collection "for the poor" and thinking to myself, "And what the hell are we?".
And my low income rural Iowa grandma raising six kids thought the exact same thing...... she had no money but the Catholic Church wanted more money from her, but never once helped her. PURE GREED
The only "helping the less fortunate" I have ever seen in my lifetime has been youth groups or other individual groups affiliated with a church raising money on their own (bake sales, car washes, etc.), apart from the church's finances, to buy food for poor families, and clothing and school supplies for poor children. In only one instance did the church add anything to those funds.
$880 million. Not a bad haul for an organization founded by a simple carpenter 2000 years ago who said that his kingdom was not of this world, and that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of an needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
So much amazing hypocrisy here.
First, the obvious hypocrisy of telling everyone else how they should live their sexual and familial lives, damning gay people for existing, and trying to blame gay people for literally at least 1000 years--and I've seen evidence that it goes back even further than that--of sexual abuse of children.
Second, of the obvious hypocrisy of admitting that there have been literally centuries of cover-up. The powers that be in the church knew of the abuse, looked the other way, and did nothing, all the while telling us how much Jesus loves the little children. Love love love love love. Like the love they express toward sinners, a great many terms and conditions apply.
Third, even more hypocrisy piled on that, because we know that this crime is under-reported, there must have been even more cases. Amd not just merely their feral, errr ummm fellow priests knew about it and participated in the cover-up, but the diocese staff and large numbers of parishioners must have known about it also, and looked the other way. we know this must have been the case with McCarrick and Branstad. It is not unreasonable to assume there were many more.
Fourth, look at how much money, and look how they always have their hands out for more so they could buy those pretty robes and gold embroidered penis hats, and build those nice houses for God to live in. not to mention, they live in some pretty nice houses themselves. I remember the archbishop's mansion in San Francisco, a beautiful old Victorian built in an area of beautiful old Victorians, beautifully maintained. Not bad for a vow of poverty. Of course, they don't own any of this, because that would violate that vow of poverty, they just get the use of it for their entire lives. After all, you can't take it with you, and some other poor deserving priest might need a place to live with eight bedrooms and find wood paneling.
It has been fairly easy to convince me that this organization is corrupt, and has been for at least 1000 years. I am always wondering why it is so difficult for so many Catholics to see the truth about their church.
But then, we can see Christians praising Trump as God's chosen one, so it isn't really surprising after all.
"They did everything in their power to block the look-back window from becoming law and then they did everything they could to limit the damage on themselves."
All the while showing not one thought to the victims these incensed-scented monsters physically and psychologically damaged for life. Damage that no amount of money will repair.
I believe there are a lot of churches that are a benefit to their own member and a very few that are a benefit to the wider community. But I think they should have to follow the same rules as any other 501(c)(3)
Liquidation of Church assets good. Loans bad. Why the fuck do they need loans? It seems to me that they should be able to just transfer cash from Rome. How many solid gold thrones does Frankie need anyway?
That being said, $1.5 billion so far is just a drop in the bucket, nowhere near what would adequately compensate the victims for the systemic abuse they suffered.
While they are finally owning up to the abuse which has been going on for centuries (Dante wrote about priestly abuse in the early 1300s), they haven’t actually addressed the problem at its root. Just like you can’t pray away the gay, you can’t pray away the human sex drive. There is a solution in Matthew. If they are so dead set on having a celibate priesthood, as part of their vows, they should get themselves castrated.
Not sure the pedophilia problem can be chalked up to just 'the human sex drive.' IMO and I'm not any sort of psychologist, but if the RCC allowed priests to date, marry, have kids etc. then I'd predict fewer illicit affairs with adults, but I wouldn't predict fewer sex crimes against children. Different thing, different drives, I think.
As I have commented many times before, the celibacy requirement is not what creates the sexual abuse of children. Sexually confused men, pedophile men, homo-hatinghomo men, men trying to escape their sexuality, men trying to escape questions from their families and associates...
Have always flocked to the church hoping that the celibacy requirement and promises to the nonexistent God will protect them from themselves. And what do they find when they get there? A whole bunch of other men just like themselves, creating a culture of deviant sexuality, perversion, and a lot of people willing to cover it up for others so that their own sins will be covered up as well.
And I have also come to believe more and more in the last 25 years that pedophiles who are not trying to hide are also attracted to the church, because they know that they will find victims there.
The celibacy requirement is not causing any of this. Rather, it is a symptom of the problem itself, and creates the culture of secrecy necessary for the problem to thrive. And worse, the spirit of clericalism, where priests are seen as some sort holy intermediary between God and man and are put on a pedestal for that reason, encourages the secrecy. As I wrote in my comment earlier, not merely the priests knew about this, but entire dioceses must have known about it
Ah, so good point. Institutional commitment to celibacy is not the cause of the problem, but rather a siren song attracting people who already have this problem. Eliminate the celibacy, maybe fewer of those people select priesthood as a way to deal with their problem (their personal demons? Seems appropriate).
I think the celebacy requirement is probably responsible for the 15-16 year olds. If they were allowed consensual relationships with adults, I don't they'd go for the easier and controllable teenagers.
I have to disagree. I will refer you to the Boy Scout sexual abuse crisis, going on for decades now. For decades, the scouts did not allow any gay people in the organization either as scoutmasters or Scouts. For decades, they had a sexual abuse problem, Which they covered up just like the Catholic Church did. Unofficially, they required Scott Masters to be heterosexually married. I worked for them more than 50 years ago, and that was quite clear.
So who was doing the abuse? Men who would be called heterosexual by their families, friends, colleagues, church, community, wives, and most importantly and above all...
THEMSELVES.
They were married, they frequently had children, and I'm sure they had sex with their wives. Sex was available to them.
Okay ... then I have to ask (and I get that you may not have an answer): Is there something in the authority figure / dependent figure model which causes some people to feel as though they are empowered to take such action? If so, how do we filter such people out of such positions?
You're right, I don't have an answer to it. I believe that there are men with some pedophile tendencies who are absolutely honorable and would never act on them, but that doesn't solve the problem.
I think there is only one pre-problem solution to the problem, and I don't know that it exists or is even practical: psychological screening. I simply don't know if it is possible.
the only real solution to the problem is a post problem solution: zero tolerance, reporting all instances to the police, and kicking the problem perpetrators out of the organization When they are discovered. We may not be able to prevent the problem itself, but we are certainly able not to allow it to continue
I don't know, even in the case of the Boy Scouts, I the the 15-16 are often surrogates for adult men. Easier access, and more easily controlled. But that's for the psychologists to figure out. (Hell some of them have proposed the theory that pedophilia is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality or heterosexuality.) The important fact is adults shouldn't be "having sex" with children or teenagers.
I absolutely agree with your last sentence. As for pedophilia being a sexual orientation, I have long thought so. All of the markers are there, exactly as they are for gay and straight. Unfortunately, calling it a sexual orientation muddies the water for people who prefer water to be muddy for their own religious, ideological, monetary, or political purposes.
Unfortunately, it's been over 50 years since I read Chaucer last. All I can remember is the pardoner, who seemed to have a problem with underage girls.
880 million or $650,000 per victim. Two words: NOT.ENOUGH. What are they actually doing to prevent more abuse or is Los Angeles really thrilled to throw money around as a " band -aid"? NOT ENOUGH. 1,353 VICTIMS. People who trusted priests. Put the priests in prison!!!!! And I am Catholic.
There is a nice residential/commercial area of albb along Coors road. All built on land the Catholics had to sell to settle their cases from the 1090s. Makes me smile every day.
"It's been called the "largest single child sex abuse settlement" an Archdiocese has ever made."
SO FAR. There will continue to be more abuse, new charges, and new lawsuits. Until pedopriests and their enabling co-conspirators GO TO PRISON instead of just paying off victims from their inexhaustible coffers, the abuse will continue with impunity, and the next record settlement will top a billion dollars.
Meanwhile, the Al Smith memorial dinner happened in NY with Trump and plenty of luminaries and billionaires in attendance. All pretending the Catholic church is not a huge criminal organization and that US bishops are neutral parties rather than right wing zealots allied with a man who would - and did - defy the Constitution.
God hates equality and freedom. God loves inequality and control over every thought, word, deed and dream. KKKatliks can end up in hell for a dream they do not remember.
As I've said before I don't understand how confession is a bar to reporting. If they confess they go to prison, if they don't they go to hell. I'm not seeing a problem with either scenario.
I do not see a problem, either. A priest can give (sell?) absolution from a sin, with the appropriate tokens of repentance but that does not apply to the crime that was simultaneously committed. That is still a matter for the civil authorities and the criminal law.
The church and its gods have declared themselves above mankind's inerior laws. This makes them capable of such atrocities as shown in the Malleus Malificarum in persecuting innocent witches.
A church protecting its precious ass will see confession reporting as a problem. It is why bishops have openly stated they will not permit publication. Citing church law, making the church impervious to law enforcement.
The systemic sexual abuse of children has been the Catholic Church's dirty little secret for centuries. It was not until these horrors began to be taken seriously by the media and prosecutors that the church expressed any remorse. Given the scale of the problem and the relatively small size of the clergy, there is simply no way Church hierarchy was unaware of the problem. They just circled the wagons, protected the priests, and vilified their victims. In light of their history, I can't help but think the Church's remorse has a lot more to do with having to pay out this money than any actual concern for the victims. No one actually needs religion in order to be a good person, and if humanity is to have any chance of long term survival, it is going to have to free itself from the yoke of religion.
I remember reading--don't remember where--that child sex abuse is mentioned in the first extant document we have that mentions christian clergy. Apparently, a small fragment, about the size of a credit card, tentatively dated late second century, says that a christian clergyman had raped a freeborn Roman boy. We don't know the source (legal complaint? somebody's private letter? something else?) and the dating is tentative (too small a fragment for absolute, thus destructive, dating). But, if it's true, that indicates that the christians have been committing this crime for longer than 1700 years. I'm a bit of a history/archaeology nerd and would like to know if anyone has heard of this--or is it just an urban legend?
It doesn't ring a bell but from what I remember of Roman culture at that time, the crime wouldn't have been the rape itself but assaulting someone with a superior social status.
Well, there were rules about superior/inferior social status (freeborn, freedman/woman, enslaved), and underage freeborn boys and girls enjoyed the most protection, legally speaking. They didn't consider a master raping an enslaved person to be a big deal, but a freeborn Roman boy? Big, big deal! That's why I'm wondering about the source.
I believe you when you say it's something you read, but if you are like me, you probably have read numerous books and magazines that may not be available for free online.
And the state of my library! JesusFuckingChrist--it could have been anywhere! A lot of my books/pamphlets/articles (etc etc) are super out of print, or were published in local papers--that sort of thing. Some people may think the Internet Is All, but believe me, it isn't. I do remember reading this somewhere, but damned if I can remember where, or even when. That's what happens when somebody has 70+ years worth of memories knocking about in the noggin.
Dianne: Hence my login name😊😊
If you remember, feel free to share in case it's republished or quoted in something more recent.
Who wins, though? A christian preacher or the freeborn Roman boy? Who's higher on the social totem pole?
It Dianne is right about the datation, in Italy legally it would have been the freeborn roman boy. Sadly, places where christianity was more established (Gaule and North Africa) it would have been a 50/50 on who belonged to the richest/noblest family.
And, likely, punishment (or lack thereof) would have reflected that. Not a historian here, but that's one reason that sources matter. Of course, later on, post-4th century, xtian clergy or adherents could, and did, get away with anything, no matter how heinous.
I can't speak to that event, but there have been plenty of stories going back manyyears.
Hell yes.
agree
Very well said oraxx I totally agree.
Impressive. Altogether, the Diocese of Los Angeles is laying out over $1.3 billion in recompense to victims of child sex abuse. That will put one hell of a twist into the Catholic Church's finances, I would expect ... but I still have to ask:
𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗬 𝗣𝗥𝗜𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗦 𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗗???
Fact is: the Church still has gobs of money stashed away, and they have yet to pay any kind of PERSONAL toll for the abuses their people subjected children to. That mealy-mouthed apology that Gomez offered is an indicator that this is water off the duck's back to them.
And I am convinced that until the PEOPLE of the Catholic Church are PERSONALLY and not just financially held responsible for those crimes, the abuse will go on. 𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑎 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒.
How many priests were arrested? Human decency says all of them. Christian Fucking Privilege says none.
This is what I've been talking about for entirely too damned long. I STILL want to know why Bernard Cardinal Law wasn't ARRESTED in Boston and held accountable for the events which were reported in the Boston Globe and dramatized in the movie, Spotlight. Just HOW did he get out? WHY was he allowed to get out?
And how much more of this has to go on before people recognize that religion and faith are the oldest, largest, and most pernicious con on the face of this planet?
I just watched Spotlight again last month! It's a damn fine movie, and I'm surprised the Catholic public didn't react to it more. I mean, when Dogma came out, they were rabbling in the streets against it. Spotlight... crickets and tumbleweeds.
Dogma, best. movie. ever!
Agreed! And I just heard that it will become available to watch again.
Good News, Everybody!
Hopefully, if they release Dogma on DVD/Blu-ray, it will once again feature all the deleted scenes and Easter Eggs.
Even when they are arrested amd judged, there are assholes who will free them on an alleged technicality that wouldn't apply to anyone but a priest*. Fuck them all.
* Australia and France 🖕
I read a quote from Napoleon today, religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Nah, I believe it is decency. Decent people mostly don't want to copy or do evil actions.
Until they are pushed too far. Then the guillotines come out.
The ultimate cure for a sore throat.
So the LA Diocese just had about a billion dollars lying around ready to spend on any old thing that happened to come down the road? Meanwhile, little old Catholic grandmas are going without food so they can keep up their donations to beloved Mother Church. Truly, this is an example of God's hand at work in the world!
According to the RCC, women aren't people and therefore no consideration would be needed. The grandmas you mention should, in their worldview, be suffering for the sins of Eve anyway.
Pardon me, I'm going to go be ill now.
The church hooked my deceased mom living on social security into a monthly $20 donation for the Crystal Cathedral refurbishment in CA.
Isn't that Rex Humbard's den?
The Catholic Church bought it in https://www.npr.org/2011/11/18/142518963/future-of-ministry-uncertain-after-cathedrals-sale2011
Yes, that's the building I remember seeing on TV. And I somehow conflated Rex Humbard with Robert Schuller. Oh well! 🙃
Easy to do!
Better than spending it on anti-abortion forced-birther shit. Like that catholic bishop in Kansas.
Almost as horrifying as the fact that the Church has to settle with SA victims (again), is the fact that they have access to $880 Million to pay the victims. Adding up the amounts of the previous settlements, the total is $2,288 Billion. That money is not going to follow the Christian mission of feeding the poor, housing the unhoused, or comforting the sick.
Add this to your consideration: The Mormon Church has $100 billion salted away in what has been called a "hedge fund." I suspect they used a portion of that to bolster the effort to pass California Proposition 8, against the LGBTQ community.
These and other churches have garnered entirely too much money and power and influence to be tolerable to this country. They need to be TAXED and taxed HARD.
The Mormons accumulated that much of a cash reserve after less than two centuries of the con. The RCC has had 17+. How many 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 do they have stashed?
Who even knows amirite?
$100 billion? That is not a hedge fund that's an entire forest. (Even using "short" billions.)
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑚 – 𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙, 𝑏𝑦 𝑎 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝.
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
It is far past time we listened to FDR's words and DID something about it. Between the megachurches and the mega-billionaires, the authority of the United States government is under threat, and I don't see a whole lot of difference between the churches and the billionaires, as it comes to that.
In Norway all approved (?) religious sects get money from the government. I am familiar with why, but I don't like it.
You mean they don’t pray for what they need to support themselves? What shallow faith they have. They should be ashamed.
Oh wait, they’re religious. They have no shame.
The thing is if they don't behave, they don't get any money. That's why the JW lost their subsidiary last year.
Don’t forget the land investments across the USA, they’re one of the largest landowners, if not the largest, in the US. Then there’s their businesses. I feel like they have more money than all the other religions put together.
The fact that they can 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘺 access that kind of money 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 shows just where their true priorities lie. Money and power, power and money, and lip service to "helping the less fortunate".
I grew up in the ghetto and I remember going to Catholic mass when they would take up a second collection "for the poor" and thinking to myself, "And what the hell are we?".
And my low income rural Iowa grandma raising six kids thought the exact same thing...... she had no money but the Catholic Church wanted more money from her, but never once helped her. PURE GREED
The only "helping the less fortunate" I have ever seen in my lifetime has been youth groups or other individual groups affiliated with a church raising money on their own (bake sales, car washes, etc.), apart from the church's finances, to buy food for poor families, and clothing and school supplies for poor children. In only one instance did the church add anything to those funds.
And that was back in the 70's.
I am cynical enough to think that money was never going to be used to help those in need.
Well, perhaps those in need of a good legal defence team.
It wasn't going to go for any of those things anyway.
$880 million. Not a bad haul for an organization founded by a simple carpenter 2000 years ago who said that his kingdom was not of this world, and that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of an needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
So much amazing hypocrisy here.
First, the obvious hypocrisy of telling everyone else how they should live their sexual and familial lives, damning gay people for existing, and trying to blame gay people for literally at least 1000 years--and I've seen evidence that it goes back even further than that--of sexual abuse of children.
Second, of the obvious hypocrisy of admitting that there have been literally centuries of cover-up. The powers that be in the church knew of the abuse, looked the other way, and did nothing, all the while telling us how much Jesus loves the little children. Love love love love love. Like the love they express toward sinners, a great many terms and conditions apply.
Third, even more hypocrisy piled on that, because we know that this crime is under-reported, there must have been even more cases. Amd not just merely their feral, errr ummm fellow priests knew about it and participated in the cover-up, but the diocese staff and large numbers of parishioners must have known about it also, and looked the other way. we know this must have been the case with McCarrick and Branstad. It is not unreasonable to assume there were many more.
Fourth, look at how much money, and look how they always have their hands out for more so they could buy those pretty robes and gold embroidered penis hats, and build those nice houses for God to live in. not to mention, they live in some pretty nice houses themselves. I remember the archbishop's mansion in San Francisco, a beautiful old Victorian built in an area of beautiful old Victorians, beautifully maintained. Not bad for a vow of poverty. Of course, they don't own any of this, because that would violate that vow of poverty, they just get the use of it for their entire lives. After all, you can't take it with you, and some other poor deserving priest might need a place to live with eight bedrooms and find wood paneling.
It has been fairly easy to convince me that this organization is corrupt, and has been for at least 1000 years. I am always wondering why it is so difficult for so many Catholics to see the truth about their church.
But then, we can see Christians praising Trump as God's chosen one, so it isn't really surprising after all.
"it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of an needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Nobody enters heaven, neither rich nor poor, nor old or young. T
As I have previously pointed out, that was before the invention of the food blender.
"They did everything in their power to block the look-back window from becoming law and then they did everything they could to limit the damage on themselves."
All the while showing not one thought to the victims these incensed-scented monsters physically and psychologically damaged for life. Damage that no amount of money will repair.
And people STILL think that the Church is largely a benefit to the communities it "serves." [coughBULLSHIT!cough]
I believe there are a lot of churches that are a benefit to their own member and a very few that are a benefit to the wider community. But I think they should have to follow the same rules as any other 501(c)(3)
I agree ... but religions aren't treated the same as non-religious 501(c)(3)s. Never have been, because religion.
tHE "CHURCH" says adult sex is icky and requires marriage to purify it.
Generations of victims. The Catholic church should be impoverished by now. The entire organization must shit gold or something.
𝐴𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑏𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑝 𝐺𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑧 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑑𝑖𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑑𝑖𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠, 𝑎𝑠 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑠𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑠, 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠.
Liquidation of Church assets good. Loans bad. Why the fuck do they need loans? It seems to me that they should be able to just transfer cash from Rome. How many solid gold thrones does Frankie need anyway?
That being said, $1.5 billion so far is just a drop in the bucket, nowhere near what would adequately compensate the victims for the systemic abuse they suffered.
While they are finally owning up to the abuse which has been going on for centuries (Dante wrote about priestly abuse in the early 1300s), they haven’t actually addressed the problem at its root. Just like you can’t pray away the gay, you can’t pray away the human sex drive. There is a solution in Matthew. If they are so dead set on having a celibate priesthood, as part of their vows, they should get themselves castrated.
Not sure the pedophilia problem can be chalked up to just 'the human sex drive.' IMO and I'm not any sort of psychologist, but if the RCC allowed priests to date, marry, have kids etc. then I'd predict fewer illicit affairs with adults, but I wouldn't predict fewer sex crimes against children. Different thing, different drives, I think.
As I have commented many times before, the celibacy requirement is not what creates the sexual abuse of children. Sexually confused men, pedophile men, homo-hatinghomo men, men trying to escape their sexuality, men trying to escape questions from their families and associates...
Have always flocked to the church hoping that the celibacy requirement and promises to the nonexistent God will protect them from themselves. And what do they find when they get there? A whole bunch of other men just like themselves, creating a culture of deviant sexuality, perversion, and a lot of people willing to cover it up for others so that their own sins will be covered up as well.
And I have also come to believe more and more in the last 25 years that pedophiles who are not trying to hide are also attracted to the church, because they know that they will find victims there.
The celibacy requirement is not causing any of this. Rather, it is a symptom of the problem itself, and creates the culture of secrecy necessary for the problem to thrive. And worse, the spirit of clericalism, where priests are seen as some sort holy intermediary between God and man and are put on a pedestal for that reason, encourages the secrecy. As I wrote in my comment earlier, not merely the priests knew about this, but entire dioceses must have known about it
Ah, so good point. Institutional commitment to celibacy is not the cause of the problem, but rather a siren song attracting people who already have this problem. Eliminate the celibacy, maybe fewer of those people select priesthood as a way to deal with their problem (their personal demons? Seems appropriate).
That certainly what I think.
I think the celebacy requirement is probably responsible for the 15-16 year olds. If they were allowed consensual relationships with adults, I don't they'd go for the easier and controllable teenagers.
I have to disagree. I will refer you to the Boy Scout sexual abuse crisis, going on for decades now. For decades, the scouts did not allow any gay people in the organization either as scoutmasters or Scouts. For decades, they had a sexual abuse problem, Which they covered up just like the Catholic Church did. Unofficially, they required Scott Masters to be heterosexually married. I worked for them more than 50 years ago, and that was quite clear.
So who was doing the abuse? Men who would be called heterosexual by their families, friends, colleagues, church, community, wives, and most importantly and above all...
THEMSELVES.
They were married, they frequently had children, and I'm sure they had sex with their wives. Sex was available to them.
Okay ... then I have to ask (and I get that you may not have an answer): Is there something in the authority figure / dependent figure model which causes some people to feel as though they are empowered to take such action? If so, how do we filter such people out of such positions?
You're right, I don't have an answer to it. I believe that there are men with some pedophile tendencies who are absolutely honorable and would never act on them, but that doesn't solve the problem.
I think there is only one pre-problem solution to the problem, and I don't know that it exists or is even practical: psychological screening. I simply don't know if it is possible.
the only real solution to the problem is a post problem solution: zero tolerance, reporting all instances to the police, and kicking the problem perpetrators out of the organization When they are discovered. We may not be able to prevent the problem itself, but we are certainly able not to allow it to continue
I don't know, even in the case of the Boy Scouts, I the the 15-16 are often surrogates for adult men. Easier access, and more easily controlled. But that's for the psychologists to figure out. (Hell some of them have proposed the theory that pedophilia is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality or heterosexuality.) The important fact is adults shouldn't be "having sex" with children or teenagers.
I absolutely agree with your last sentence. As for pedophilia being a sexual orientation, I have long thought so. All of the markers are there, exactly as they are for gay and straight. Unfortunately, calling it a sexual orientation muddies the water for people who prefer water to be muddy for their own religious, ideological, monetary, or political purposes.
Agreed. The stories may be anecdotal, but there are tales of eunuchs in harems...
Frankly, the solution is simple: DROP THE DAMNED CELIBACY REQUIREMENT!!!
I don't think this celibacy requirement is the problem. It's what enables the problem.
Back in the days of widespread mumps, Eunuchs were pretty common.
You're probably correct about that.
It is also in bocaccio and Chaucer. Saint Peter Damien wrote about 1000 years ago.
Chancer n'a pas du se faire des amis avec son histoire à propos de moines qui doivent partager une offrande assez particulière faite à leur monastère.
Unfortunately, it's been over 50 years since I read Chaucer last. All I can remember is the pardoner, who seemed to have a problem with underage girls.
Bocaccio wrote, "Never trust a fat priest." People starved, but the clergy somehow managed to put on weight.
Matthew 19 11-12
880 million or $650,000 per victim. Two words: NOT.ENOUGH. What are they actually doing to prevent more abuse or is Los Angeles really thrilled to throw money around as a " band -aid"? NOT ENOUGH. 1,353 VICTIMS. People who trusted priests. Put the priests in prison!!!!! And I am Catholic.
Not NEAR enough.
There is a nice residential/commercial area of albb along Coors road. All built on land the Catholics had to sell to settle their cases from the 1090s. Makes me smile every day.
The RCC was in NM in the 11th century‽‽‽
Isn't nmgirl Canadian or is it cagegirl ?
cag is Canadian. cagegirl I don't remember. NMgirl might be in NM or maybe from NM. Anyway, I binged Coors Rd and it is in NM.
biblical truth.
https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/463486682_122134659728350578_4774358299113681370_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=RcY7MBEugMwQ7kNvgGePNki&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&_nc_gid=AIXw4XVFPMxLGE1YbAYzCGr&oh=00_AYBbFP30VxtRhQFxcb9QHNsA3XPt_rHBZs2IxvDKjgdhvg&oe=6718BAE0
Christian uses the term "biblical truth," I tell them that's an oxymoron.
"It's been called the "largest single child sex abuse settlement" an Archdiocese has ever made."
SO FAR. There will continue to be more abuse, new charges, and new lawsuits. Until pedopriests and their enabling co-conspirators GO TO PRISON instead of just paying off victims from their inexhaustible coffers, the abuse will continue with impunity, and the next record settlement will top a billion dollars.
What about sending the pedophiles and perverts to prison?
What about training priests and monks and nuns and staff about the simple rule: DON'T MOLEST KIDS OR YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!
Too hard!
By the way....where was God during all this?
Oh, yeah.
Busy making bets with Satan on the outcome of sporting events. The "Big Bookie in the Sky...."
God was watching and jerking off.
LOLOLOL
Meanwhile, the Al Smith memorial dinner happened in NY with Trump and plenty of luminaries and billionaires in attendance. All pretending the Catholic church is not a huge criminal organization and that US bishops are neutral parties rather than right wing zealots allied with a man who would - and did - defy the Constitution.
Surely the Catholic Church wouldn't host a divorcee and convicted felon?
And his checkbook. Although it will probably bounce.
...but he is a sex offender so he gets a pass
LOL, brilliant!
The poop invited and received sarkonzy at the vatican. The pretext ? It was as France presidential so it didn't count. Next question ?
God hates equality and freedom. God loves inequality and control over every thought, word, deed and dream. KKKatliks can end up in hell for a dream they do not remember.
As I've said before I don't understand how confession is a bar to reporting. If they confess they go to prison, if they don't they go to hell. I'm not seeing a problem with either scenario.
I do not see a problem, either. A priest can give (sell?) absolution from a sin, with the appropriate tokens of repentance but that does not apply to the crime that was simultaneously committed. That is still a matter for the civil authorities and the criminal law.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what it God's. God gets your repentance. Caesar gets your time in jail.
The church and its gods have declared themselves above mankind's inerior laws. This makes them capable of such atrocities as shown in the Malleus Malificarum in persecuting innocent witches.
NEVER trust one...
https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/463640667_1785752392211115_5329532336638503746_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=bd9a62&_nc_ohc=yxA7gXqo1ygQ7kNvgHAsFNe&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&_nc_gid=AO7dOuIaah-_EB9FpMypqnl&oh=00_AYCI0fTUfLD6Pp40g7DasqnHRTgCF5qphvujOAJkVh4sFg&oe=6718693B
I want that for a Halloween costume. That would win the "scariest" prize.
A church protecting its precious ass will see confession reporting as a problem. It is why bishops have openly stated they will not permit publication. Citing church law, making the church impervious to law enforcement.
HuffPost
'Daily Show' Goes There With Stomach-Turning Line About Trump That'll Ruin Pudding.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/daily-show-goes-stomach-turning-035555216.html
Trump ruins pudding and the presidency.
He basically ruins everything he touches or breathes on.
Bah, sa blague c'est du flan.
Creme brulee never goes amiss.
Is the tart comment really needed ?
It was the Brest I could do.
Copy and pasteis ?
Just trying to pun in French is Pain-ful for me. :)