Targeted Condemnations Wanted
Dennis Prager wants more condemnations with specified targets in the vein of Pope Francis's condemnation of the Mafia. Excerpt:
It is not enough for Muslim leaders to issue routine condemnations of violence and terrorism. Without specifying the Muslims who are the world’s premier practitioners of murder in God’s name, these condemnations of violence and terror are worthless.
Muslim religious leaders — from Al-Azhar in Cairo to local imams throughout the world – need to say exactly what Pope Francis said to the Catholic members of the Mafia: “Any Muslim who commits an act of terror — that is, deliberately murders civilians of any nationality or religion — goes to hell.”
This would be particularly effective given how many Muslim terrorists have been convinced by some religious leaders that blowing up, shooting, or slitting the throats of men, women and children guarantees that they will go straight to heaven (where, moreover, they will be attended to by dozens of virgin women).
Condemnations of actions in general mean nothing. Only when the perpetrators are specified and their actions are specified is there hope of having a moral impact. Pope Francis specified exactly whom he was addressing and for what sins.
Don't hold your breath, Dennis. Muslims fall mainly into two camps: violent murderers and moral cowards.
“Any Muslim who commits an act of terror — that is, deliberately murders civilians of any nationality or religion — goes to hell.” -- um, but that is not what the religion teaches, or at least there is conflict on that point, so why would they say it? On the other hand, we have people in the Vatican directly contradicting what our religion clearly teaches and Francis seems not to have such a big problem with that.
ReplyDeleteBut I guess we can be grateful Francis didn't say "Who am I to judge?" about the Mafia.
ReplyDeleteWhen Pope Francis condemns Catholic clergy who abuse and/or cover for abusers by name, I'll start listening. How about this for starters?
ReplyDeleteAs for Dennis Prager, whatever....
Um, he certainly has condemned them, repeatedly. Maybe not by name in every case...but hey, his predecessor disciplined 400 of these guys; kinda hard to remember 400 names.
DeleteDiane, can you name me one Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, or other prelate that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope Francis I have laicized for their participation in covering up for abusive priests? I am not Catholic, so I may well have missed such an incident.
DeleteAs I read the Scriptures I see it teaching that we are to make sure our own house is clean before we go about telling others to clean up their house. The Catholic Church has a very dirty house when it comes to shielding and protecting the enablers that knowingly allowed monsters to run loose in their parishes.
Again...I freely admit that I may well have missed such activity over the past quarter century or so. But since you know of 400 I am sure you can give me the name of one such enabler who has been laicized for this.
Before I do your Google research for you, can you tell me what faith you DO adhere to? And what your church has done to stop sex abuse among its own clergy and hierarchs? From what I'm seeing these days, every religious communion on Planet Earth has sex-abusing clerics, many of whom seem to be getting away with it scot-free. (I'm talking everyone from Independent Fundamental Baptists to Eastern Orthodox to Mormons to those quaint, simple Amish folks.) So...just wondering (for the sake of curiosity) what *your* communion is doing about this pervasive problem. Thanks in advance!
DeleteDiane, I am a Baptist. I'm not certain if you are familiar with the Baptist principles regarding congregational polity, but to put it simply the local congregation is the one who hires and fires the minister. The Baptist Conference Offices do *not* have any direct control over our congregation, though they do have authority to grant/recind ordination to ministers in our denomination.
DeleteAs for what I have done regarding abusive clerics in our denomination, the answer is simple. In 1987, when a minister was accused by someone in the congregation of inappropriate behavior, we did not seek to silence the accuser. Neither did we quietly ship the minister off to another congregation. We did the responsible thing by *immediately* contacting local law enforcement and cooperating with the investigation from the moment we found out about it.
As a result there was a competent investigation, a trial, and a conviction for sexual assault of a minor. Upon our recommendation and after reviewing the evidence from the court case the conference offices withdrew ordination from this individual and made it known to all of our member churches that he had been removed from the ministry.
In the years since then I am aware of three other churches in the conference who have done exactly the same thing when an accusation of abuse was made. There may well have been others who swept them under the rug, Diane, but in these instances that did not happen. And in the instance of our church I am quite content with the work that our Deacons did with regards to both the accusations as well as the care and love we gave to the victim and her family.
Again, what I am looking for, Diane, is any statement from any of the past three Pope that *by name* condemned a Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, or other prelate for their actions in obstructing investigations, covering up abuse, or otherwise enabling predators in their midst.
Thank you for your kind response.
Sin knows no denominational bounds.
DeleteFor some reason our Baptist friend prefers to troll me, not you. Even though you've thrown him/ her some bait. Go figure. #GeorgiePorgie
DeleteGreetings, my Baptist friend. Are you aware that the Southern Baptist Convention refuses to release the names of known clerical sex offenders, so that congregations could be forewarned when one of these predators leaves one Baptist church to infest another?
ReplyDeleteDid you see where Billy Graham's grandson, the founder of GRACE, has said that Catholics nowadays do a far better job of preventing, reporting, and dealing with clerical sex abuse than evangelicals do?
Please see stopbaptistpredators.org. Very enlightening!
Diane...if you do not wish to answer my question, please say so. You asked what I have done for my church (which is not a Southern Baptist church), and I answered your inquiry. Will you answer mine, or will you ask me about another Baptist denomination I do not associate with?
DeleteTell you what. I will do your Google research for you when you tell me what Baptists in general (including your bunch -- not you personally) are doing to stop sex abuse. BTW...are you IFB? They have the worst record of all. Just sayin'.
DeleteDiane, my comment was in response to the post, specifically the following: "Condemnations of actions in general mean nothing. Only when the perpetrators are specified and their actions are specified is there hope of having a moral impact. Pope Francis specified exactly whom he was addressing and for what sins." I made my comment in response to that.
ReplyDeleteYou offered up the 400 that had been punished (more than likely all of them priests who had abused, and none of them those who had covered up or enabled). I asked you to back that up with one name, just one name.
I am not a member of an independent Fundamental Baptist church, for the reason you mention and many, many more. Neither am I a Southern Baptist.
You, if I take your prior comments on other threads correctly, are a Catholic. I would expect you to be more familiar with the Church than I am for that reason.
If you are going to say that the Catholic Church is doing well because they are so much better than those who are doing worse, that sounds a lot like what CAIR says when they are cornered for specific condemnations of Muslim "clerics" who incite these terrorist nutcases. We shouldn't accept their weak, watered down condemnations, should we?
So...I will gladly answer any of your questions if you will but answer my one. Have any of the last three Popes, the leaders of your Church, specifically condemned any of those who enabled and covered up for the molesters under their authority? Or should we toss their remarks into the same weak water that we toss CAIR's?
I do not want to come across as hostile or antagonistic. But we are all adults here (I assume), and we have been poking some fun at the Working Boy for failing to fact check himself or cite his sources. Should we not do better than the one we so enjoy to ridicule?
Diane, I will withdraw my initial question. I don't want to make you uncomfortable, nor do I wish to disrupt further this thread by pushing any farther. Let us just accept that we disagree on this point and move on, shall we?
DeleteOK, here's the deal, my anonymous Baptist friend. You charged in here trollishly, with the following nasty little challenge: "When Pope Francis condemns Catholic clergy who abuse and/or cover for abusers by name, I'll start listening...."
DeleteUm, the popes have done better than that, as I told you. Pope Benedict removed and laicized over 400 abusive priests. He also removed Archbishop Rembert Weakland, among others. Our popes, in fact, have done roughly 1000 to the nth power MORE than your Baptist leaders and preachers have to resolve the clergy sex-abuse problem. Can they do more? Should they have done more? Yes. But they've already done a LOT more than the Baptists have, as even Billy Graham's grandson acknowledges. (Did you actually read the information at stopbaptistpredators.org? If not, why not?)
I am not going to do your Google research for you, because you know what? You can easily do it yourself. Google "what the popes are doing about sex abuse" or something similar. It's easy! Mr. Google is your friend...really.
Moreover, I am not going to do your Google research for you because you have clearly asked in bad faith. You are an anti-Catholic troll, as your refusal to look at the stopbaptistpredators.org evidence clearly shows. You accuse the Catholic Church, yet you do not acknowledge that the same (or greater) problems exist in your communion. This is intellectual dishonesty, to put it mildly.
IMHO, you are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in learning what the Catholic Church is doing to stop sex abuse and protect children. If you were, you would do a simple Google search to uncover copious articles on this subject. Similarly, you are CLEARLY not interested in acknowledging the fact that your own Baptist denomination is currently far more engaged in covering up abuse and resisting transparency than we Catholics are -- again, as even Billy Graham's grandson acknowledges. Nope. You're not interested in acknowledging your own communion's sins -- ongoing sins at that. You're here ONLY to lob potshots at Catholics.
- continued -
DeleteEver hear of BJU and GRACE? How about Pensecola Christian College? Both situations have been in the news quite recently -- so, if you can uncover recent news stories about decades-old Catholic sex abuse, why can't you uncover recent news stories about BJU and Pensecola? (No, I am NOT justifying what the Philadelphia Catholic clerical perp did OR minimizing the victims' pain...just showing you your double standard.)
How about Jack Schaap (who committed statutory rape a LOT more recently than the perp in the article you linked us to)? Or any of the countless abusers and enablers and cover-uppers mentioned at stopbaptistpredators.org? What are your Baptist leaders doing about these people? C'mon, now. Turnabout is fair play.
The US bishops turned to an independent outside agency -- the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at CCNY -- to investigate abuse claims. BJU turned to a Christian group -- GRACE -- and then FIRED them just a few weeks before they were due to release their report. Yes, BJU was forced to rehire GRACE after the public outcry embarrassed them and cost them donations. But initially they fired GRACE, right on the eve of release of its report. The bishops never dreamed of firing John Jay, who released their report several years ago. (Google it; you might find it enlightening.) Yet you have the nerve, the gall, the immortal crust to condemn us while refusing to acknowledge your own communion's crimes? The mind boggles. (Glass houses...stones...ring a bell?)
You mention that Baptists are organized congregationally, not hierarchically. But, as stopbaptistpredators.org notes, that is precisely the problem. Baptist perps can easily hop from one church to another -- and the new church has no way of knowing that they have just inherited a molester -- precisely because there is no central clearinghouse, no person or body who can collect and disseminate information about clerical sex offenders. This is a recipe for disaster!
Oh yeah...there is the SBC. But they refuse to release their list of clerical sex offenders. Some transparency!
You say you're not in the SBC. That's nice. The IFB is even worse -- as the Pensecola Christian College imbroglio shows.
Please spare me the pious regrets. I am not "uncomfortable." I am simply unwilling to do a bunch of Google research that you can easily do yourself. If you were asking in good faith, then fine, I would type in the keyphrases for you. But IMHO you are not asking in good faith. If I am wrong, if you are sincerely seeking the truth, then my answer is still the same: Google it. The truth is out there, and I am not afraid of its disclosure (despite your pious-schmious insinuations). Unlike BJU and Pensecola, we Catholics have nothing to hide. So...go ahead. Google. The truth is out there, for all to see, including you.
"You accuse the Catholic Church, yet you do not acknowledge that the same (or greater) problems exist in your communion."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you demonstrate you do not understand Baptist faith and practice. Yes, there are MANY adulterers and child molesters in the various Baptist denominations. I acknowledge that. But if you expect to hold me accountable for abusers in the IFB or SBC groups then you should expect to be held accountable for abusers in the Eastern Orthodox faith.
I can only answer for our church and for the conference with which we affiliate. You asked what I had done, and I told you.
Oh...regarding Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who retired from his post as Archbishop of in 2002. Given that Pope Benedict XVI served as Pope from 2005 to 2013, just what did the Pope remove Weakland from? There is no mention of Weakland being punished by the Church for his role in the scandal in either the Wikipedia article linked above, and this site indicates that Weakland resigned in 2002 in the wake of allegations. I can find no record of any sanctions against him from Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope Francis I.
Care to try again?
So...you are not your brother's keeper beyond your own local church? It doesn't matter what Baptists do as long as your own hands are clean? That is utterly unbiblical. It is also vile.
ReplyDeleteYou also misunderstand how our church works...but I'll get to that tomorrow.
Weakland was forced out by Rome, genius. Do you know nothing of how these things work? Believe me, he would never have resigned without that kick in the pants.
I should not even respond to a troll...but your lies must not go unanswered.
BTW...I see you know how to use Google. Bravo. Now use Google to do your own homework WRT what the pope is doing about sex abusers. Which is a hell of a lot more than you are doing, Mr. Pharisee.
OK, my Baptist friend, I apologize for the personal insults. I am sorry I called you "genius" and "Pharisee." Mea culpa.
DeleteBut I stand by my utter amazement at your claim that Baptist congregational polity means that Baptists do not have to try to prevent / redress sex abuse anywhere beyond their local congregations. I am frankly aghast. How is this remotely Biblical? Remember Saint Paul's concern for "all the churches"? Did he care only about the churches he had founded? No...he took up a collection for the Jerusalem church, 'member? Guess he hadn't gotten the memo that he was supposed to be concerned ONLY with his local church!
And let's get real here. Even the IFB is not as atomically congregational as it claims: It is a loose federation of churches, divided into different camps; certain names pop up over and over depending on the camp -- Hyles, Schaap, et al., for one camp; the Bob Joneses and their party for another camp; etc. I know you've said you're not either SBC or IFB, and you're very coy about what you are. But you must be something, and I will warrant that whatever it is you are is far less congregational in praxis than you claim.
(continued next post)
Re the popes: I think you need to realize something about Catholic ecclesiology. The pope is not a micromanager. How could he be? There are 1.3 billion Catholics and counting. The pope could not micromanage 1.3 billion people even if he wanted to, and I can assure you he doesn't want to.
DeleteThat is why most sex-abuse cases (like most of ANYTHING) is handled on the diocesan level, not the papal level.
Case in point: Here in the Charlotte Diocese, a few years ago, a chancery employee happened to see a social-media posting by a man claiming that one of our diocesan priests (now in his 80s and dying of cancer) had molested him several decades ago. The chancery employee immediately reported this to the bishop, and the diocese immediately reported it to the authorities. (This is diocesan policy in every diocese I know of.) The priest was then arrested. He later confessed to the molestation, which turned out to involve two men, both of whom had been teens at the time of crimes.
The diocese knew nothing about these crimes until the chancery employee discovered the social-media references. As soon as the allegations were discovered, the diocese removed the priest from active ministry and reported the charges to the authorities. At this time, I believe, the priest is awaiting sentencing. I have no idea where he is...still in custody, I presume, but I don't know.
Now, I happen to know this priest personally. He frequently filled in for local pastors when they were on retreat or on vacation. He was a real character -- a crusty old curmudgeon with a thick Irish brogue. When we heard the announcement that he had been charged and arrested -- and it was announced at all Masses throughout the diocese immediately after the fact, BTW -- we were in shock. Nobody could believe it. For the longest time I didn't believe it -- not because I have any illusions about human fallibility but simply because my gaydar didn't even blip around this priest. And I have pretty sharp gaydar; I mean, I work in the apparel industry, and it doesn't get much gayer than that. But Father K never struck me as even remotely "that way." Most people who knew him agreed; we thought this must be one of those cases where someone wanted to raid the deep pockets of the Catholic Church. (Those cases do exist; I believe Pauli knows of one such case personally.) However, even while I was skeptical about the charges, I knew that the truth would come out one way or the other eventually, and I knew that the diocese had done the right thing by removing Father K from ministry and reporting him to the cops. Like many of my friends, I was in a state of shock when Father K confessed -- but that just goes to show how hard it can be to identify perps. They don't always look like Nick Nolte on a bad hair day; they don't always trigger your gaydar; and they don't walk around with "I'm a Sex Offender" tattoed on their foreheads.
continued next post
Anyway...the approach my diocese took is Standard Operating Procedure in dioceses today. Which is why even independent secular sources now concede that the Catholic Church has made HUGE strides in addressing the sex-abuse problem. Of the relatively few cases that have cropped up in the past few years, most concern crimes that occurred decades ago; in some cases the perps are dead.
DeleteNow back to the popes.
(1) You allege that the 400 clerics removed by Pope Benedict must all have been abusers, not cover-uppers. How the hell would you know that? (Excuse my French.)
(2) I'm pretty sure those 400 names are known to the authorities, but I doubt any news source would be interested in publishing 400 names. Good grief. We can't win, can we?
(3) Most of the bishops involved in cover-ups have either been removed from their dioceses or have retired or have died. (I guess they should have been hanged, drawn, and quartered, too, to satisfy your ideas of appropriate Catholic-But-Not-Baptist Justice. Maybe that will come later.) Today's bishops are overwhelmingly on board with zero tolerance -- which, again, is much more than can be said for many Protestant pastors and leaders, as the recent BJU and Pensacola cases show.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. According to the evidence compiled at stopbaptistpredators.org, Baptists live in very brittle glass houses indeed. Until y'all clean up your own messes -- and that means denomination-wide -- you have absolutely NO basis on which to condemn today's Catholic Church, which is doing yeoman's work to redress the wrongs of the past.
Diane: (1) You allege that the 400 clerics removed by Pope Benedict must all have been abusers, not cover-uppers. How the hell would you know that? (Excuse my French.)
DeleteWell, this report gives one account, quoting a Vatican report.
In his last two years as pope, Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests for raping and molesting children, more than twice as many as the two years that preceded a 2010 explosion of sex abuse cases in Europe and beyond, according to a document obtained Friday by The Associated Press and an analysis of Vatican statistics.
The data — 260 priests defrocked in 2011 and 124 in 2012, a total of 384 — represented a dramatic increase over the 171 priests defrocked in 2008 and 2009.
It was the first compilation of the number of priests forcibly removed for sex abuse by the Vatican's in-house procedures — and a canon lawyer said the real figure is likely far higher, since the numbers don't include sentences meted out by diocesan courts.
But also in that article:
Victims groups said the spike in cases appeared to be the result of victims gaining the strength to come forward and denounce abusive priests. They demanded the Vatican start sanctioning bishops who covered up for the abuse, too.
"Here's the number Catholics should remember: zero. That's how many Catholic supervisors have been punished, worldwide, for enabling and hiding horrific clergy sex crimes," said David Clohessy of SNAP, the main U.S. victims group. "The pope must start defrocking clerics who cover up sex crimes, not just clerics who commit them."
Diane: (2) I'm pretty sure those 400 names are known to the authorities, but I doubt any news source would be interested in publishing 400 names. Good grief. We can't win, can we?"
DeleteI'm uncertain about international law, but in the US those convicted of child abuse must register with the local authorities, and are usually placed on a state registry.
But if the list of priests that have been defrocked is not publicly available, how then can one determine if a former priest who is applying for a job (say at a preschool or elementary school) has a record?
Diane: "(3) ... Today's bishops are overwhelmingly on board with zero tolerance -- which, again, is much more than can be said for many Protestant pastors and leaders, as the recent BJU and Pensacola cases show."
DeleteYou just keep believing that, and maybe someday it will be true.
That seems to be a way of defining "zero tolerance" that even Bill Clinton might use.
If Weakland was forced out by Rome, it would have been nice of Rome to say so, instead of letting him spread the fallacy that he left at a mandatory retirement age. I think that would be the sort of "targeted condemnation" Prager is after. Let's not die on this hill, Diane.
ReplyDeleteNot dying on any hill. Just observing political reality.
DeleteLike your hubby, I work at a large corporation. From time to time we hear, "Such-and-such honcho is leaving to pursue other opportunities." Everyone in the company knows what that means. NO ONE thinks it means he wasn't forced out by top management. That's political reality -- in the world and in every church.
I have a lot more to say about this. I am sorry I lost my temper with our Baptist friend, but his double standard and pharisaical self-congratulation got to me. As everyone without an anti-Catholic ax to grind acknowledges, the Catholic Church is currently doing a TON more to redress and prevent sex abuse than any other communion out there. By far.
So, our Baptist friend thinjs he's off the hook because he did something about an abuser in his own congregation...and to heck with all those other Baptist congregations; their victims don't matter, because hey, we're organized congregationally, and only the local church counts. So...ecclesiology trumps Christian ethics. OOOOOHkay. No wonder Baptists have an unresolved ongoing abuse problem and a notorious lack of transparency. I must say not even my BJU-grad friend would twist congregational polity to justify apathy toward abuse situations beyond the local church. And then this guy has the nerve to pronounce judgment self-righteously on us Catholics? Words fail me.
As for what our conference and our church does with regards to our ministers and this issue, here is our vetting process:
Delete1) Our conference conducts background checks on all ministerial candidates prior to granting ministerial credentials.
2) All congregations are recommended to do similar background checks on ministerial candidates they are interviewing.
3) All congregations are advised to thoroughly check with the candidate's prior churches to see if there were any accusations of sexual misconduct during their time there. If there were any accusations the conference recommends we reject the application of that candidate unless there is *clear* evidence of innocence.
Our congregation follows these recommendations, and have turned away candidates for our pulpit for failing on any of these checks. Why? The answer is simple...
1 Timothy 3:1-7
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Does this mean we will never hire an abusive minister, or have one abuse another of our congregants again? No. But we feel it is reasonable to put in place these safeguards to protect the church and the congregation as well as the integrity of the Gospel message to the best of our ability.
Kathleen, I think that is exactly the kind of targeted condemnation Prager is looking for, and it is exactly what my initial comment is referring to. A public statement that Archbishop Weakland was being removed from his position due to allegations surrounding his involvement with the various scandals pending the outcome of the investigation in that Archdiocese would have been sufficient. A clear, succinct statement from the Vatican.
You keep banging the drum that the Baptists of various flavors are just as bad as the Catholics. I'm not disagreeing with you. But is that the standard you really want to compare your church to? Whatever happened to Christ's command to be holy as He is holy? Yes, we will never attain it in this lifetime, but does that mean that we should simply be happy that we are better than the sinner down the road?
Not just as bad. Worse. As Bill Donahue says, our abuse problem reached its peak in the '60s and '70s. Today we have a cleaner record than ANY other institution, including yours. So, no, I am not settling for being just as bad as Baptists. As Billy Graham's grandson attests, Catholics today are better than Baptists at addressing sex abuse.
DeleteAnd yes, I understand your ecclesiology. I just don't think it lets you off the hook WRT concern for congregations beyond your own. If you have issues with this, take it up with Saint Paul.
In the meantime, your self-congratulation that you are not as these Catholics over there comes across as pharisaical to the nth power.
GIVE ME A BREAK DIANE. No one at "my hubby's" corporation has been accused of violating young men or at least one young man sexually and spiritually, to the point where said young man is attempting suicide weekly, and the perpetrator is paying said victim off with company funds to the tune of almost half a million dollars. If someone at my husband's corporation were to do that you're sure as shootin' we'd be reading about it all over the press. And I have no idea why you're referring to him as "my hubby" but please don't.
DeleteTo correct my earlier remark, Weakland reached the mandatory retirement age in April of 2002, and his retirement was accepted in May of that year. So it was not the allegations that forced his resignation, but his age.
DeleteOh, that "mandatory retirement age" is all part of the extra special political skills so tactfully demonstrated by the Vatican in this case. See, those in the know get what "mandatory retirement age" means --- it means you sexually abused people and tried to pay them off for their silence. Come on, you'd have to be clueless not to know that!
Delete"But I stand by my utter amazement at your claim that Baptist congregational polity means that Baptists do not have to try to prevent / redress sex abuse anywhere beyond their local congregations."
ReplyDeleteOK...allow me to explain this further, since you clearly do not understand it. The Southern Baptists are as much apart from my Baptist conference as the Methodists are. They are a separate organization with their own distinct theology, practices, organization, leadership, and finances. My conference has absolutely NO legal association. Nor to we have and common truck with them theologically. We do not hire ministers from their seminaries, nor to they hire from ours.
The SBC has a poor track record on sex abuse (and adultery, for that matter), which is why I am not a member of their group. I would never join their church for a host of reasons, only one of which is their sex issues.
The SBC does not ordain, train or install our ministers. We do not ordain, train or install their ministers. Had the original poster made the comment regarding Richard Land instead of Pope Francis I, I would have responded with a similar remark regarding the SBC's record on immoral ministers.
That's something I don't think you get. The thread was about Pope Francis' response about the Mafia. Not Richard Land's response. THAT is why my comment about the Pope was made.
I'm sorry you refuse to understand that. I'm also sorry you refuse to understand how the various Baptist denominations work.
Just skimming this.... I stop taking anyone seriously when they pull out that ol' "you have to clean your own house first" card. Oh, yeah, and then we have to let Dreher, Bill Maher, Jack Chick and Mr. Baptist here inspect the house. When they all give it the thumbs up then we can move on to talking about all the other many ills in the world. Until then, let's stumble around publicly flagellating ourselves.
ReplyDeleteLOL...thank you, Pauli.
DeleteJust thought of something. Mr. Baptist's conference has suggestions and recommendations. The USCCB has a zero-tolerance policy, period. Gee...wonder which approach is better at weeding out perps?
There's an independent report out there confirming that Catholics currently have an excellent record at preventing abuse -- the cleanest record out there, as Donohue notes. I will try to find the link. Not that even that will silence pharisees.
...and...I wonder why Mr. Baptist won't identify his conference? Maybe because a Google search could reveal that it's not as untainted as he implies?
Deleteyeah! pay pray and obey!!!!
DeleteThen Pauli, what's the point of this post? Aren't you contradicting yourself? what the hell?
DeleteOops, I meant "not just as bad...better." IOW, the current Catholic record for dealing with sex abuse is the cleanest of any institution, which means it's cleaner than the Baptists' record.
ReplyDeleteAnd Kathleen, I have no earthly clue what you are talking about. You asked why the Vatican doesn't come out and say, "We're yanking Weakland [or Mahony for that matter] because of X, Y, Z." I answered that this is not how these things happen, politically. Just as in corporations, it's...political. I said nothing about sex abuse in corporations (although that actually does happen; google "American Apparel"). I was talking about the m.o. for removing people, period, since that's what you were talking about. Sheesh.
"You asked why the Vatican doesn't come out and say, "We're yanking Weakland [or Mahony for that matter] because of X, Y, Z." I answered that this is not how these things happen, politically."
DeleteExactly. You never mention why an individual resigns.
It's only political with corporations *when there's not criminal activity*. Yeah, we canned Joe Schmoe because he gave us lousy business advice -- that's when companies stay tactfully silent. Not when employees are stealing half a million dollars to silence their juvenile f^&*-buddy. now do you have an "earthly idea" what I'm talking about?
Delete"No one at "my hubby's" corporation has been accused of violating young men or at least one young man sexually and spiritually, to the point where said young man is attempting suicide weekly, and the perpetrator is paying said victim off with company funds to the tune of almost half a million dollars."
ReplyDeleteThat is starting to change as the Church is forced to release more documents about the scandal. Indeed it seems that the Catholic Church is likely no better than any other multi-national corporation with regards to this, since you can find numerous instances of such payoffs in the private sector with a Google search. The thing the Church has been able to do is keep such payoffs hidden from public eyes, especially the eyes of their parishoners.
How long before the next shoe drops? This will indeed be an interesting trial to watch, as it threatens to blow the lid off of the coverup scandal in both the US and Ireland...assuming it ever gets to trial.
Um, can someone else help me deal with this troll? He is becoming more and more vicious, obnoxious, and oh yes, MENDACIOUS.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of "troll" is not "someone who says stuff I don't like or I don't want to deal with"
DeleteHe makes good points. you're the one who started the "tu quoque" business, Diane. I don't give a hoot about his church or what they do, but I can tell you I'm not real happy with mine.
DeleteWhere have I lied, Diane? Can you demonstrate any statement I have made that is a lie? If not, then you are spreading a falsehood yourself, are you not?
DeleteOh brother. Lord have mercy.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
DeleteHey, baptist anonymous, what would happen to a deacon or baptist equivalent who announced to the congregation that an 8 month old he was baptizing during that service "has cleavage", i.e. "this one has cleavage"? just curious. it happened to me with a catholic deacon. I didn't say anything because i knew nothing would be done.
ReplyDeleteto clarify, it happened at the baptism of my daughter and he said it about my daughter.
DeleteA Baptist, to the best of my knowledge, would not baptize an infant. First of all, baptism within the Baptist realm involves immersion. Also, most of us see baptism as a command that is obeyed after one believes and is saved. Therefore, since infants cannot express such a belief, baptism would not be appropriate.
DeleteAnd a Baptist minister in our church who made that comment after baptizing a young lady would likely not make it out of the baptistry alive if the father of the girl were nearby. As for what kind of penalty might be levied, I suspect that we'd have a special meeting the next weekend and then advertise for a new minister. Thankfully we've not had that happen...yet.
Well, the reason why nothing was said and nothing was done is because, frankly, we are used to idiots in the catholic church who have what might generously be called "poor pastoral skills", and we are also used to sitting in the pews and taking it because theoretically there is a densely layered hierarchy that is supposedly taking care of these things behind the scenes with extraordinary political aplomb, and that therefore it's A-OK for laity to remain passive.
DeleteThat's the thing I do not understand. Why is the laity tolerating this absurdity? I realize that the polity in the Catholic church is not like that in Baptist spheres, but I still cannot understand why the laity keep taking it, and keep paying out the nose for it? Is it some sort of Stockholm syndrome at play? Do they believe salvation is not available anywhere else, and therefore they will take all of the abuse, cover-up, mismanagement, intransigence, and fabrications just because they believe they will go to hell if they leave?
DeleteYa got me
DeleteSedevacantists have left. People who are just plain bored with the modern liturgy have left. Don't kid yourself that no one has left. For me and others, the argument is who has really "left": sedes would say the modernists have left and this is an imposter church. I'm not leaving because I don't think the church is rotten top to bottom and I don't have high expectations. But if laity continue to just take the nonsense without a peep I have a problem with that and they will hear about it from me.
DeleteMaybe you'd be interested in this:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9-Nm9OsCoA
and I should add that I'm firmly convinced people within the church, in high places, are purposely trying to undermine it from within. so there's that.
DeleteHey baptist anonymous, here's another scenario. what would happen if a priest or baptist equivalent said Joseph and Mary, in the time before the annunciation, were "friends with benefits"? this happened at a catholic mass a few weeks ago, one my parents attended.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming, of course, that the idea of Joseph and Mary getting it on pre-marriage would offend most baptists, let alone that it offends the idea of a Virgin birth which most cathlic clergy are supposed to buy into, in case you didn't know
DeleteBut of course, to listen to my catholic friends here, all is well and the catholic church is a bastion of great personnel management, even though they can't manage to get their priests to get the basic catholic theology straight
DeleteKathleen, as I have said all along...no church is perfect. We had a ministerial candidate a few years ago who candidated by preaching from his own translation of the Bible, offering it up as "more authoritative". How he got credentials in our conference I will never know, but when we reported him they were revoked.
DeleteStuff happens...things slip through the cracks. The important thing is what happens when it is brought to your church's attention. Do they shuffle people around to make the problem go away? Do they pay hush money to make the victims/accusers go away? Or do they do a thorough investigation and get at the truth of the matter, then put in policies to help prevent it from happening again?
I think there is ample evidence that the Catholic Church is still struggling with the investigation part, and has yet to really take steps to address those who enabled the predators.
I honestly cannot understand how anyone can look up to a person as a moral authority when there are blatant questions about their behavior regarding something as damning as protecting abusers.
Well, we don't really look up to persons as moral authorities. We look to tradition and church teaching. At least, I do.
DeleteBy the way, I convened with "my hubby", and he confirmed emphatically that his company would immediately report to the relevant authorities any lawbreaking by an employee, as a matter of routine policy. Here we have yet another instance of standards being higher in your average corporate environment than the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone needs to let these Italian bishops in on the notion of mandatory reporting to legal authorities.
Deletewell, we must conclude from this that the Italian bishops have the situation totally under control, of course!
DeleteI believe this comment from one of the attendees says it all, Kathleen.
ReplyDelete"Abbiamo creato per la prima volta in tutta la storia di un giardino di pura ideologia, in cui ogni cattolico può fiorire, al sicuro da parassiti di eventuali veri pensieri contraddittori.
"La nostra unificazione dei pensieri è più potente arma di qualsiasi flotta o l'esercito sulla terra.
"Noi siamo un popolo, con una sola volontà , una volontà , una causa.
"I nostri nemici sono loro stessi parlare a morte e noi li seppellire con la propria confusione.
Faremo prevalere!"
Translation available here.
To be fair (?) to the Italian bishops, I think you're giving them far too much credit. Trust me, they and their confreres have already done far too much to undermine cathoilc theology to be accused of rigid authoritarianism. I'd just put this down to boring old cowardice and incompetence.
ReplyDelete