With Pope Benedict XVI ending his visit to the U.S., the biggest question will be whether his very public efforts to address the Catholic priest sex scandal that has rocked the Church for the past six years have helped begin the healing process among disillusion faithful; faithful who felt betrayed by the way the Church initially covered it up, then vehemently denied it, then quickly tried to quell the controversy by paying off the alleged victims.
At this point, the scandal has exposed more than 5,000 abusive priests and revealed more than 13,000 victims. It has caused the Church more than $2 billion in litigation and severely bruised the image of the institution. In many neighborhoods, parishioners are still skeptical of priests who pat a young boy on the head or make physical contact with children in any way.
Shooting the Messenger
The biggest revelation of the scandal was not the number of priests who were full-blown sexual predators in every sense of the world. It was, rather, the rampant corruption within the institution of the Catholic Church in its handling of these guilty priests. Instead of disciplining them and turning them over to the authorities, it shuffled them off to other, unsuspecting parishes where they were able to resume their pedophilic behavior.
In fact, it's hard to point to any instant in recent history when the Church itself has identified and punished clergy discovered to be abusing their young victims. The behavior of such priests only come to light when the victims themselves point them out and the law steps in, supplanting the Church's "internal review process." Even then, the Church rarely - if ever - accepts guilt until the victims win their cases in court.
Much was made in the media about the fact that, during his visit to the U.S., Pope Benedict met privately with a number of victims to offer them "encouragement and hope." Yet, interestingly enough, only a few of the victims considered their meeting a positive experience; the others were disappointed. Among those who were not invited, many remained critical of the Pope's actions, demanding that the Pope do more than express sorrow and regret: He must end the Church's pervasive practice of protecting its guilty priests.
But will he? The answer may lie in the Pope's own words to reporters: "It is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing, to give love of God to these children," he said.
A careful review of the statement reveals that Pope Benedict is actually placing all the blame on the individual priests themselves. He does not fault the institution that, through its policy of shifting guilty priests to other parishes, encourages and protects them - and worse, places potentially more unsuspecting victims at risk. As far as Pope Benedict is concerned, it appears to be business as usual for the Catholic Church.
------------------------
Mario's column, Point of Convergence, published to Gather Essentials: Politics, looks at the American political landscape and the people and events that make the news. Mario is a culture trend expert who frequently speaks on cultural, political and social issues that impact modern life. Keep up with Mario's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click popculture and select the orange "Connect" button on the left side of the page.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 63
The reality is that there was a disgusting 'wall of robes' protecting these pedophiles, just as there is in many families and groups throughout the world. Unfortunately, tolerance of sexual abuse is so prevalent throughout the globe that I am not surprised it is within even this type of religious organization. The Catholics were not the only ones harboring pedophiles, they were just the ones who got caught.
I think the Pope was brave even bringing the subject up, although it is obviously still a disgrace and the harm it did to those children is unimaginable and unforgivable.
This extends to judges who give lenient sentences to child abusers, to bishops or cardinals who protect abusing priests from the consequences of their actions and to popes who defend and perpetuate the practice.
I am not saying that Benedict XVI is a child abuser, but I'm not saying he's not a child abuser. I AM saying that he is no better than a child abuser so long as he defends and continues the practice of being more concerned for the institution of the church and for the healing of the offending priest than for the safety of children and the healing of the victims.
The point is, if someone commits a crime (and child abuse IS a crime), he should pay for it. Sexual abuse of children is among the worse because it can leave very deep scar.
In any event, saying that it's the church's practice of demanding celibacy from its male priests distracts from the fact that the individual is still responsible for his own actions. The man didn't become a pedophile after entering the priesthood – he just found an ideal environment in which to continue his practicing his perversion.
From our own troops, our police force and our clergy, there are some who refuse to acknowledge their evil and cover it up. They think they are beyond reproach because they wear the uniform.
How sad that we don't question the frock, the badge or the uniform becuase we want to believe in them.
Do we hold the entire police department guilty for the acts of a police man??
Do we hold the entire Congress guilty for the acts of a rep or senator??
Do we hold an entire family guilty for the acts of a family member??
Was the entire LaCross team held guilty when some members were erroneously charged?
Was the entire Clinton admin held guilty as Clinton was impeached??
You liberals are a curious lot.
This is also true of little league coaches, scout leaders, teachers and anybody that uses a position of influence over children to exploit them. The difference between these and the actions of the priests are that the priests were protected by their HUMAN superiors rather than punished and exposed.
Healing has to start somewhere. Will people instantly forgive and forget? Of course not, but the problem has to be addressed, albeit many years too late.
In our persecution of the church (and of Catholic people, in many cases), let's not forget about those primarily responsible for protecting their children. The parents who took the money when they could have exposed the problem long ago are at least as guilty as any bishop who offered that money.
The Pope can't undo the crimes of the past. He can only acknowledge them, take steps to prevent it from happening again and ask forgiveness that may or may not be granted.
The answer is both. The pope has little real understanding of American catholics as compared to the church in Europe. He considers this an American problem as there
haven't been the widespread revelations of the church in Europe.
And then, the church is guilty of too much faith. They honestly believed that if they counseled and prayed with a deviant, and the person promised to sin no more, that God would effect the changes in the deviant's heart to enable him to live without sin. As one Catholic put it to me "if you can't work it out with God, how can you work it out at all?" The leaders in the church were hones believers in this and I doubt that any of them really felt they were putting a pedophile back into the position of betraying trust and offending again. Like I said, too much and unrealistic faith.
This excess of faith extended to the laity as well as they could not believe that a priest would commit such acts in the first place, believed that the children were lying if they said anything and believed that the church leaders would make it right somehow if it did happen. Never again will they be that naive.
But I have no doubt that the pope is genuinely contrite and saddened by this litany of sins that have been exposed in the church in the United States.
I beg to differ with your view that the Pope placed all the blame on individual priests. The transcript of Pope Benedict's April 17 address to the U.S. bishops at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception clearly shows that he believes the bishops are to blame as well:
"Responding to this situation has not been easy and, as the President of your Episcopal Conference has indicated, it was "sometimes very badly handled". Now that the scale and gravity of the problem is more clearly understood, you have been able to adopt more focused remedial and disciplinary measures and to promote a safe environment that gives greater protection to young people. While it must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of clergy and religious in America do outstanding work in bringing the liberating message of the Gospel to the people entrusted to their care, it is vitally important that the vulnerable always be shielded from those who would cause harm. In this regard, your efforts to heal and protect are bearing great fruit not only for those directly under your pastoral care, but for all of society."
Telling the bishops that the church's response was "badly handled" is akin to an admonishment of the bishops, in my mind. Granted, I wish he had elaborated and spoken more specifically, but this Pope prefers to speak in generalities. So be it.
Yours in Christ.
*ROFL* yeah sure, and I'll bet MLB is going to be blamed for the few "drug enhancing" athletes, even after THEIR coverup *ROFL*
how RIDICULOUS you are Mary-0......
When the entire force knew this officer had a problem, YES GOD DAMN IT!
One 12 year old he threatened to shoot, hung himself. When I talked to him, he said he never told his parents that cop threatened to shoot him. When I talked to his father, he was more afraid than his son. He had been harassed so much, they shot his tied up dog, they would pull him over daily. It stopped when his kid hung himself and the father bought a gun.
Funny how dozens of police abuse complaints were ignored but when they started taking bribes, over half the force was fired. As a favor for no DUI charges, the head of city maintenance paved the police chiefs driveway. No prosecutions, just firings.
http://www2.state.id.us/ag/newsrel/2005/nr_jan272005.htm
*ROFL* yeah, serpico took down the ENTIRE NYPD *ROFL* morons *ROFL*
My sense is that many of the nuns and front-line priests who join the organization come in with good intentions, but they too quickly become disillusioned as they realized that, to get ahead, they have to play the game of hypocrisy.
some of you morons would be far better screenwriters than you seem to be as political observers, or as in this instance, experts on the papacy and the Holy See.
The "church" ain't paid a dang dime. They passed the bill on to their parishioners. That's right, the abused kids (now adults) and their families are ponying up the chump change that's being thrown to the victims, while the church conducts business as usual.
My local diocese declared bankruptcy, then told their parishoners they'd have to pay "their share" of the reparations.
l
Perfect proof of that is the fact that someone has flagged this article as "hate speech" when in fact it is rather tame by comparison to other articles on the site. Some people are very hostile and violent toward anyone that questions their moral values. In fact, neither the article nor any of the people who have commented here are questioning the religion, but rather the human beings who claim to be on a higher moral plane and who should set better examples.
In any event, your behavior illustrates my point that certain people become irrationally hostile when someone appears to offer a point of view that doesn't jive with their own views. Like the radical extremists, they'd rather respond with violence. Your behavior is no different than that of Islamic extremist who threaten Westerners for drawing cartoon images of their God.
All religious institutions are run by human beings subject to human failings, whether it's the Catholic Church or Islamic fundamentalists.
In the end, what really is at issue is: How can we ask god for forgiveness of our sins, if we are not willing to forgive others for theirs? Even Pope John Paul II went to forgive his shooter.
I often think that the people who profess to be the most religious are the ones that are most unhappy
Isn't that self serving *chuckle* What are you Mary-O ??? Believer or Heathen???
What you might "think" isn't necessarily true sprout, much like your article here, and your comments that followed----
People who describe themselves as "very religious" are among the happiest of people. Those who say they are "very religious" come in ten points higher than America as a whole on the Happiness Index (45% compared to 35% are considered "very happy"). In contrast, just over one-quarter (28%) of people who describe themselves as "not religious" were measured at that level of happiness.
A similar difference is noted among people who say they "pray or study religion at home" on a daily basis compared to less often. Over four in ten people (43%) who engage in "daily" prayer or religious study are very happy. In comparison, just over one-quarter (28%) of people who "never" pray or study religion at home have a comparable happiness level. SOURCE
I believe it's both! I don't think that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
before I can answer the question, I think I need to know what you believe "contrition" is, don't I ???
isn't contrition simply another form of damage control ???
Who are most famously, as a group, contrition centric ??? yes of course, catholics.
when someone confesses, they do so with the intent of limiting the damage of their stupid mistakes.
I fail to see the difference between the two words, and if a difference does in fact exist, I suggest it is a difference without distinction, and therefore moot.