Sexual abuse and the rule of Omerta; Christians, explain

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Sexual abuse and the rule of Omerta; Christians, explain

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

polpol
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 01:19 pm
I heard in the news today that another catholic priest has been accused of repeated acts of pedophily on numerous young boys over many years. This time there is strong evidence beyond any doubt that the authorities were well informed of Father Prince's behaviour for as long as 17 years ago but they chose to put all their efforts in not letting it go public. They did nothing for the victims. Some of them were as young as 6 years old.
There are so many cases of child abuse and pedophily among the Catholic clergy that it is no longer possible to qualify such hideous acts as isolated cases. It is now a fact that the Vatican has always been aware of what was (is?), going on, physical and psychological violence, rape, sado-maso practices, sodomy...The systematic application of the rule of Omerta providing complete immunity to the culprits shows that the Catholic church has become a haven for all sorts of perverts.
I read the Bible in search of any clues that may explain this state of affairs and I found nothing that allows such monstruous acts of depravity, unless Jesus' statement "Let the children come to me" is to be interpreted in the light of pedophily, but I don't think so.
We know historically many Christian churches were formed in reaction to the Vatican's abusive policies. This means that it is practically impossible to change the Church from the inside. And still the Pope refuses to accept homosexuality and will not allow priests to marry (for obvious economic reasons). If there are any Catholics in this forum, I wonder what they make of all this. It's not only about destroying the lives of young boys. Not so long ago the Pope excommunicated a young Brasilian girl who got an abortion because she got pregnant after she got raped. Her doctor and her parents also got excommunicated. We also know that during the second world war, not only did the Vatican not help the Jews but actually collaborated with the Nazis and helped them flee justice after they lost the war. Here in Quebec, during the fifties, orphanages were transformed into mental health institutions for financial reasons and orphans were systematically labelled mentally ill and-or retarded. Many were lobotomised and only recently did the survivors get some symbolic compensation from the government, not the church. All this caused many to abandon their religion but surprisingly many Catholics still prefer to go on living on their knees.
Apart from the Catholics, I also wonder what the other Christians make of this, since the Vatican is the richest and most powerful and is considered the main reference of Christianity, thus determining the general image of all Christian churches.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 02:37 pm
@polpol,
I am not a fan of Roman Church. It's beautifull, impressive in grandeur etcetera. I know Catholics, like them and they are not impressed by the Pope. He is part of a ritual, like royalty.

There are many Christians in Europe. Some are Calvinist, Lutherian, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic and so on. Some churches were called heretic and were suppressed. I am interested in Arian christianity who saw Jezus as a special man, but not as a God. They did not believe in Trinity I understood.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 03:21 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Dogmatic attention to scriptures has this effect on all religions. Its intransigence is apparent but nothing will change till catholics realise the pope is not in communication with god but his own narrow minded views.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 03:31 pm
@xris,
I'm not catholic and I don't approve of the current papal practices, however I'm racking my brain trying to figure out the philosophical and or real theological merit to the rant in this post and ones like it that have been the rage on the forum recently. Wouldn't they be better fit in the blog section, its not like anyone here is going to debate for the righteousness of pedophilia.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 03:56 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;150035 wrote:
I'm not catholic and I don't approve of the current papal practices, however I'm racking my brain trying to figure out the philosophical and or real theological merit to the rant in this post and ones like it that have been the rage on the forum recently. Wouldn't they be better fit in the blog section, its not like anyone here is going to debate for the righteousness of pedophilia.
I can understand your reticence on the subject but to comment indirectly on other posts is not helpful. I think it does deserve comment when you consider the implications these events have caused. The RC church has a history of child abuse and it needs to be examined.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 11:26 am
@xris,
Yes Xris it does need to be examined. It is one thing to expose it and discuss it. It is another to vent about it and expect people to agree. One is a valid criticism, especially if you are working within the supposed doctrine of the religion or discussing the larger social and psychological ramifications of the events. The other is potentially hurtful hate speech. In a more flies with honey way, the former is less likely to put a papal supporter on the automatic defense, resulting in more likelyhood of him/her changing their opinion of the papacy and its stance on this issue, and I assume that in a discussion on this subject that would be most people's goal.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 12:57 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;150284 wrote:
Yes Xris it does need to be examined. It is one thing to expose it and discuss it. It is another to vent about it and expect people to agree. One is a valid criticism, especially if you are working within the supposed doctrine of the religion or discussing the larger social and psychological ramifications of the events. The other is potentially hurtful hate speech. In a more flies with honey way, the former is less likely to put a papal supporter on the automatic defense, resulting in more likelyhood of him/her changing their opinion of the papacy and its stance on this issue, and I assume that in a discussion on this subject that would be most people's goal.
I believe one is the result of the other. Democratic reasoning is disposed of in hierarchical system. When you place all your faith in one mans ability and then give him supreme authority it will give rise to certain human failings.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Sexual abuse and the rule of Omerta; Christians, explain
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 05:38:32