Where does God fit into the Catholic Pedophile Scandal?

I have not seen this issue addressed in any of the debate about this, not here, I mean in the media as a whole.
Don't Catholics believe that the Clergy and The Pope are their representatives and conduit for their prayers to God?
Do they ask how God feels about a group that let children be abused for so long and covered it up rather than try to stop it?
Do they feel that these are the men (and it is just men) who should be there spiritual leader?
Does God approve of the way the Church has acted, and if not, how are they staying in God's graces by supporting an institution and the very men who have perpetrated these sinful acts?
After all, the Catholic Church is not just a non-profit organization, it's not PBS or the United Way.
It very purpose is to serve God.
So shouldn't a Catholic think about where God fits into this as the primary consideration?

It's a wonderful game, isn't it?

He smiles down upon them.

when I was just 11 years old (I am female). I was raised in Catholic schools for 12 years, and this incident happened when I was in the hospital for an emergency appendectomy. The old (I guess he might have been 55 or 60, but to an 11 year old girl. . .that was ancient!) molested me after mass in the hospital chapel in the "sacristy."

I never told either my parents or my teachers, or the nurses at the hospital. . . .I was too ashamed!
But the way I came out of this is with the knowledge that, no matter what I was taught about catholicism,priests were just men, some good, some bad!

And I never lost my faith in God. . .I just lost my faith in ANY clergy. . .KNOWING that, as a whole, they were no better, and probably no worse (I was also molested by a brother in law and a friend of the family) than any other man. . .
But this incident at the age of 11 just made me look further up the hierarchal lather. . .beyond the priests, the bishops, even the pope. . .beyond MEN to GOD.

And my idea of God became much broader than the old man with a white beard, or the man on the cross. . .My idea of "GOD" became that of a non-denominational entity that was best represented by all of us, by the mountain, and the sea, and the animals, and the forest, and goodness and love, and LIFE.

And though I am an atheist, I do not ask this as a subversive way to challenge one's belief in God. Rather I wonder about how believers feel about a Church that acts this way. And what are their reasons if they choose to stay within that church.
Do they think about how God looks at them and the church they support?

In my case, I lost all credibility in "the Church" and the priests and nuns, not as human beings, but as "instrument of God."
I didn't even really blame them. . .just look at them as mere humans, with the good and the bad that comes in ever human person.


So. . the Catholic Church kind of loss all meaning to me, and I began "interacting" with the superior energy that I began to "picture" as GOD. . .
Basically, it led me to believe that "GOD" was not a "separate entity" to be revere THROUGH the Church (priests, nuns, bishops and popes), but through an INTERNAL entity within every human being, a part of all of us.

But I still understand that it is helpful for some people (children especially) to get a "concrete" connection with their internal God through participating in a church community.. . .as long as that church community doesn't overshadow the greater, broader understanding of an universal, personal God.

Basically, I think we all are a part of God.... And it has helped me to be more accepting of people's shortcomings.

I got what you were saying.
I was just ruminating further on my question. But you clearly felt the church no longer was a spiritual place for you.

St. Thomas, not in the bible, had a gospel that he wrote and said that we all had god inside of us and that is where we should look for god.
There was a movie about this and I can not remember the name of it right now.

As you say, we are all connected as we are all connected with everything in the universe.

so I decided to watch it on line right now.

find it.
Thanks.

http://www.tvduck.com/
and then do a search for Stigmata and then it will give you a choice of different places to watch it.

Any questions feel free to contact me.

That's also why, although still officially a Catholic, I am actually really interested in Buddhism. . . because of the "energy pool" we all belong to.

Does this help?

Ancient Jewish marriage rites seem beside the point.
What do modern Catholics think about where God stands on their Church? Do they think about it at all?

Liberals worship a liberal god, conservatives worship a conservative god, and child rape enablers worship a child rape enabling god. Unfortunately, this third type of god is fairly popular with both liberals and conservatives.

we are all different and so we all see god differently from everyone else.

Which is why homophobes have a homophobic god while non-homophobes do not have a homophobic god. Etc.

that one's god is just a reflection of themselves??

For example: a man may believe god frowns upon adultery, but this man may still commit adultery because he is flawed.

This man's god probably does not break his own moral codes even though the believer does break his own moral code.

The opinion, "adultery is bad," is reflected in the god, but not the flaw.

I hope that makes sense.

Next to Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

I doubt any of this comes as a surprise to God.

And an odder understanding of humans.

Tell me, with your understanding of God, is there ANY difference whatsoever between a universe with him and a universe without him?

But don't construe this as an invitation to another trite rendition of if there's a god how can it allow evil.

I'm not in third grade.

Now go find a sandpile somewhere and count the grains.

And here I thought "prove it" had something to do with scientific research. Silly me...

If you're going to claim that a complex god-creature created the universe, you're going to need a more compelling argument than the existence of the universe.

Did you compare Darkstar's understand of God to an understanding of God which you do not consider odd?

The old implication in her statement is how can a god who is good allow this evil.

Epicurus is far more interesting than darkstar.

I'm interested in learning how you personally believe that God is involved in this universe. You started with the idea that this universe wouldnt' existence, and I wanted you to show where you got that idea and how you could prove it. Overall, though, what I'm really interested in is what you see as the differences between a universe with god and with no god.

ETA: I find it funny that you continue to assume that I am the opposite gender simply because you disagree with me so vehemently. You remind me so much of middle school...will you call me "faget" next?

Didn't you type: "You have an odd understanding of God." to Darkstar? What does that mean?

The old implication in her statement is how can a god who is good allow this evil.

In my early years, I grew up in a Catholic family, in a Catholic neighborhood, and I went to a Catholic school and Sunday school. I don't understand what god does for the living on Earth either.

Epicurus is far more interesting than darkstar.

Perhaps if you are wicked awesome with your Ouija board.

a mechanical view of God, constricted by human attributes, falling short of human expectations.

That is odd.

Sorry about your poor catechesis. Perhaps you should learn more about that which you condemn.

Many people claim to believe in a god which judges right from wrong, many people claim to believe in a god which is self aware, etc.

Virtually all descriptions of god, Poseidon excepted, share the notion that god is limitless.

The fact that religions then describe human interactions with god, their adherence to various moral codes and, usually, final judgment, does not detract from that unlimited nature of god, which frankly is incapable of human understanding, not to mention human proof.

So, what is odd about these critiques of god, that it allows suffering, is arbitrary, is ephemeral, is malevolent, etc., etc., is that it reflects more human misunderstanding than understanding of god. It says more about people than god. Like the blind men describing an elephant.

To get back to the OP, the sex scandals have everything to do with human beings and nothing to do with God.

If indeed a personal being exists at all, such a being has to have some limits, or you end up with nonsensical arguments about the nature of said being.

Can God create a rock even he can't lift?

How does free will exist with a God existing who knows everything, past, present, and future?

The problem is people rarely take the time to step back and consider the literally awesome nature of God before lassoing him into their own shape. That is theology.

Religion on the other hand is the imperfect encounter between humans and God.

Do you believe in a personal God, one that telepathically listens to your thoughts (prayers) and intervenes in the world on behalf of those thoughts?

about the Universe or our place in it. You claim that logic is a human construct, and that is true, but then again so is the concept of a God in the first place. Indeed, in the attempt to personalize such a being humans limit that being. For example, by confining it in the singular, like I did, or giving such a being a gender, like you did.

The concept, or understanding, of God is limited by our ability to understand it/him/her.

But theologically and philosophically God does exist outside, beyond and separate from human understanding.

even if only talking theologically or philosophically, its still an assertion without proof. At best we are talking about the nature of a hypothetical being, that may or may not exist.

eta ","

The Greek gods and goddesses had limits, don't they count as gods?

These are the claims in question.

1) God is unknowable.

2) God is limitless.

New question: Does God choose to be unknowable?

On the contrary, religion is based on revelation.

Trying to explain something in simple terms (God did it!) that we don't yet know the exact cause through science yet.

Volcanic eruptions, lightning storms, hurricanes, all used to be thought of as God being angry. We now know that isn't the case.

If we could be so wrong about blaming so many natural phenomena on God, might not we also be wrong about whatever else we claim God is responsible for?

Pat Robertson, however...

What is evident, however, is your ignorance of religion as it presents itself.

Religion, by its own terms, is based on revelation. It is not something you can think your way into, try as you may.

You can either accept it or reject it. But you should at least first understand what it is.

Otherwise you look stupid.

I was part of a faith not all too different than your own for the first 15 years of my life. Went to Sunday school every week. I think I was pretty well informed of what my religion was all about. The problem is, the "answers" that my religion had about life raised more questions than it solved.

If God created everything, what created God?

If we all have Guardian Angels watching over us from birth, why do bad things happen to us still?

If Christ died for our sins so that only those who believe on him find salvation in the after life, what happened to all those people who died before Jesus was even conceived?

Little things like that just didn't add up. You seem to think religion deserves some sort of protection from logical analysis or science.

Religion is "revelation" as you put it. Revelation is nothing more than how we humans perceive certain events in our life. Perceptions that can be explained by science -- perhaps not to your satisfaction, but explained naturally still.

I simply don't see what the big fuss is over religion. Its a human belief system, an ideology, nothing more. Religions come and go as people accept new ideas. Christianity won't be around forever, arguably its already waning in the world as newer ideas like Islam have their (temporary) day in the sun. Who knows what religions will be around even 1000 years from now. Probably something that is only considered a "cult" right now.

:)

and given many human attributes, from being spiteful or merciful to even being petty and generous, schizophrenic and yet also considered unchanging and eternal. All of these are not logically consistent of course, but people still believe in this type of personal being.

Which is why scholars consider the history of the writing of the Bible to be crucial to any coherent understanding of this document.

To understand the development of Monotheism in the Middle East, specifically the explanation of the transition from polytheism and henotheism to monotheism of the Israelites. Not to mention how their culture, at various times, changed its understanding of God(s) to fit their cultural attitudes at various points in their history.

*snort*

degraded to the God/No Gog back and forth.
But that is not what I am asking.
I take it as a given that a Catholic still believes, and I don't want to challenge that here. But what do they feel about how God looks at this horrid scandal.
Do they still believe that God wants them to remain in a church that has been involved in this to the highest level?
Almost all the talk about the church has been on a political/institutional level. But isn't the purpose of the church to serve and worship God.
So isn't God's place in this of primary importance.
So in the view of a believer, what would God have you do?

"they have nothing to do with God."

It's the MWC coming back to bite everyone in the ass once again. God is blameless and has nothing to do with this scandal. He turns a blind eye toward the whole thing because it is entirely a failing of man in which he will not interfere. :boring:

But I'd like a Catholic to answer why they would stay in a church that continues to be run by failed men.
Their prays are lead by these men, is that who they want to speak to God for them?
This is a question about their relationship with God and the church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm

The efficacy of the sacraments has nothing to do with the piety of the priests.

No religion, no ideology, and no government for that matter, has been or will be immune from failed men.

The Church has merit regardless of its leaders.

I hear this from reluctant Catholics a lot. "But I can't abandon the sacraments!"

What makes the "sacraments" so special? I mean, the Church says they are special, so why do you believe what the Church has to say about them when you disagree with what the Church does politically? It just doesn't make any sense.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

Politically, the Church is fair game. It often speaks and acts outside its competence.

I'll read up on it, from the horse's mouth as you put it, just so that I'm more informed about the topic when someone brings it up in the future.

I worked for a church--not a Catholic church, so the doctrines are a bit different. But the ministers and lay folk had their share of moral problems.

More than one of the problems could have been prosecuted.

The question was--and is--a thorny one. What do you do about it? Esp. since my church at least wasn't in the "we're part of government and enforcers of secular law" business. In fact, the general view was that there's secular authority and religious authority, and they are not the same. When a person--minister, lay member, or stranger off the street--told information to the minister in confidence unless somebody was in danger it was in confidence.

On the one hand, we were to forgive transgressions. On the other, we had to protect members from each other and the clergy. It's all well and fine to say, "Send them to jail so they can rot--and then send them a nice note saying that all's forgiven." That's not forgiveness, that's snarkiness. If forgiveness has no consequences, then it's cheap and being forgiving and being vengeful are near synonyms.

The options weren't great, since the church was small. Forbid a minister from having authority over X, if he'd abused his authority with X. Keep lay members apart from each other. On rare occasion, kick somebody out. Since the church wasn't a secular enforcement agency, as long as nobody was in further danger, as long as the offender was put in a position of being powerless to commit the same kind of act again, it was okay.

Most of the time one of two things happened: The offender quickly left, and when we were contacted we gave a "we can't tell you why--it was said in confidence--but no, don't trust this person around" whatever was involved in his offense. Or, the offender not only came to grips with his problem, to the extent he could he made good on the wrong. If he was a recidivist, we had the option of kicking him out. Of course, sometimes personal ties between the pastor and the offender made fairly passive punishment difficult; then the pastor was also called on the carpet. Not a pretty sight, but it shouldn't be.

For the Catholic priests, people want to maintain the wall of separation between church and state *and* make the church a state intelligence agency. In fact, the policies that the church had are very similar to those that my church had--except since the church was far larger it was harder for a rep to follow an offender. In fact, they're also fairly similar to those that most of the universities I've been at have, and the teacher's union I was in had. If a claim was made, the university would investigate and try to handle things in-house. The last school I attended had a non-existent filing cabinet full of settlement papers, including non-disclosure agreements, concerning sexual assaults and harrassment claims. It was there, but if you asked about it you were told that they weren't allowed to acknowledge its existence.

The teacher's union was the same way. If a student filed a sexual assault or harrassment claim, the union would work with the teacher's employer to find a way to settle the "problem" out of the courts. It was considered failure if the case went to court. The usual way of dealing with the problem person, both as far as the teacher's union and the university was concerned was to move the person to a place where he couldn't be a problem. Did it work? Often not. Sometimes the person was too well connected. Often since non-disclosure was required of both sides the person would leave and go to another school--and because nobody could tell his next employer of the problem, he'd be hired and repeat.

This all sounds very familiar. But most people aren't going to be up in arms when an NEA or AFT member is caught bonking a boy or girl because they don't have any "moral" standing, even though "values education" is a current buzz word and they act like they have moral standing. Or when a major university, a bastion of liberal thought, protects rapist faculty or administrators.

Even though the behavior is the same, for the same reasons, churchers are outside "our" camp. Even though in the case of churches they have forgiveness as a doctrine, something that the teacher unions and major universities don't have as a doctrine, we hold them accountable for only part of their doctrines, and when they don't live up to the standards we profess for them we accuse them of hypocrisy.

I have not great love for pedophile or hebephile priests, but understand the moral dilemma the church is in, and places the victims in. I also sympathize and even empathize with the victims, because I've seen ministers victimize people--after all, the ministers are also people. It's a reason I'm not in a church, and a problem I have yet to fully cope with.

But many are after a perfect society composed of imperfect people.

(as described/revealed in the worlds major living religious traditions)

then that god awaits to judge all those who have perpetrated such evil.

If there is no god then we live in a universe in which the vast majority of evil committed goes unpunished.

"...until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream".

in God. Isn't it paramount that they consider God in how they act in response to this scandal?

“…all Catholics believe in God”

Yea…and I believe you will find huge diversity in who/what they believe god to be and how/when god might act/operate in the world.

“Isn't it paramount that they consider God in how they act in response to this scandal?”

Depending on who you think “they” are- Clergy or Laity.
From my perspective, regarding the Clergy….no.
The Catholic Clergy/Admin is the very model of a male hierarchical system.
Bluntly…the ‘Suits’…the supremely confident aggressive AA personality types…the shit…rises to the top of the pool.
As it usually does in all such systems/structures/organizations.

These types are invested in maintaining power, control, status, image and privilege…that they would “consider God in how they act” is highly improbable.
They will and do however consider and respond to the law- class action- litigation- financial penalty and bad publicity.

Those who do “consider God in how they act” are far more likely to be found at the low ranking fringe of the Clergy (Nuns and local priests) or among the laity. It is from the fringe and among the masses that those who “consider God in how they act” arise (are sometimes called ‘Saints’) and are often in opposition/conflict with the church hierarchy.

is about the laity. That is of whom I speak.

Here is my opinion on the Clergy;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=244632&mesg_id=244632

That sounds just about right.

and any so naive as to believe that a priest (or bishop, or archbishop, or cardinal or pope) is somehow less subject to sin than any member of the laity is just wrong. Of course, I do think many of those clergymen like to behave as if they are somehow above the error-prone mass of humanity. That mindset is all to obvious in the sex abuse scandal - the continual elevating of the church hierarchy and organization over the real church - that is, the people - shows that. The first reaction isn't to beg for forgiveness and institute changes that show true contrition. The first (and second and third it seems) reaction seems to be circle the wagons and point fingers elsewhere.

Most of the Catholics I know have always understood this. They're as willing to forgive clergy as laity - and as horrified by evil done to the most vulnerable. But they often seem closer to the real meaning of the faith and its practice.

God works through all of us - there's nothing special about any particular person, for example, the pope. But we are equally all free to make choices - and that includes bad, evil choices. Again, clergy are most certainly not exempt.

hope you don't mind.



I am trying to get my post count up to 50. Thanks for your post.

wherever there are groups of people and concentration of power, then there will be a dark side that enters in. This seems to be the way of human evolution.

Since God is Goodness, the pedophilia is anethema and causing harm to a person's soul, so obviously God is against any harmful acts.

but to continue to support a church that showed such indifference to this seems oblivious.