An interesting thought about those who accept the confession of others.

[Baitball Blogger]

I was stunned by the cardinal who came out and said that the victims of abusive priests should keep quiet because of their own misdeeds. It got me to thinking, maybe he's expressing a common opinion shared by those who have power over others? Maybe they judge us in that manner. Each time we confess to doing something wrong, they might redeem us, but now they have leverage over us because they know the limit of our human frailty.

I think that is a missing piece of the puzzle for me. I know the many ways that common people get steered away from doing the right thing, because someone who owns a business can induce them with work in order to win their support for devious ends. But this is the first time that I see the church, as a whole, is a big part of our society's deterioration.

[Solly Mack]

1. Considering "the church" was the historical center/hub of a lot of people's lives

the internal corruption of said institution isn't a surprise.

"The church" was, first and most of all, a power base - a consolidation of hierarchical control over the populace.

How you prayed. What you believed. How you dressed. How you behaved. What you ate and when. Who to accept. Who to ostracize.

Never to question. Never to doubt. Infallible.

Think of it - "the church" as infallible. Your religious leaders and the leader - as infallible.

How do you question that? How can you ever hope to defeat the infallible? How can you ever be right and "the church" be wrong?

When members of the hierarchy told you something - that was law. That was it. No questions, no doubts allowed.

Why wouldn't they think in terms of using your confessions against you when you were the lowly supplicant and not part of the order?

Who are you to cast a stone when you have your own misdeeds? You, who came to the priest for absolution or guidance, who are you to point a finger at a representative of God?

Who are you, in effect, to challenge "the church'?

Because an accusation directed at one priest was seen as an attack on the whole of "the church". (and for good reason - as it was the whole of "the church" guilty of either ignoring or covering up the crime/abuse)

So "the church" acted accordingly with their guilt - which was and is great.

They turned against you if you didn't see the error of your own sin. A sin, I might add, they determined. Your blasphemy for voicing a word against a representative of God. A blasphemy they also determined.

They made the rules, they determined what was wrong or bad, they enacted the justice, and they decided the punishment.

They granted the absolution.

There is no room for YOU in that equation.

You are to do as you're told. You had no agency of your own - you were the acted upon. That was your role. (But you got eternal salvation in return, right?... What.a.deal!)

It's a system built for corruption and abuse.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. +1

Yes. You nailed it.

[Solly Mack]

4. The history of "the church" is also a history of government

To a great degree in many eras.

So, really, the corruption within can't be much of a surprise.

People being the common denominator and all.

Institutions instituted by people.

[Hekate]

3. Very eloquent

and without a single f-bomb.

[Solly Mack]

5. I can, on occasion, forgo the word fuck.

But when I do indulge, I always go for the gold.

[Hekate]

6. You betcha. I just really appreciate the occasional use of reason and analysis...

Your post gave me a slightly different way of looking at this problem, and I always like that.

That said, f-- pedophiles and lock them up.

[Solly Mack]

7. I dislike systems that take advantage of people under the pretense of helping them.

That sounds like a no-brainer and rather simplistic but I also think power attracts those who are readily corrupted and not just a case of power corrupting. I think power corrupts more, once at the helm...even if only in small doses.

Not everyone who seeks power is corrupt - but those desires for power open a person up for corruption. Making them more readily corruptible because the circumstances to compromise yourself are greater and present themselves more often. Something that has to be constantly fought against.


I find the idea of compromise being pragmatic (full stop) to be slippery for that reason. Too much room for rationalization and people have rationalized all manner of abuses and atrocities through time...and called it compromise. Or for the greater good.

Which isn't to say I'm against all compromise - but I do like to gnaw away at it first.

I also seldom get into these kinds of talks because I live in the realm of "I don't know". I can say what I'm feeling or thinking at the time, but then I'll go into myself to ponder if what I'm saying is true, true for me, or if I need to widen my thinking. In essence, the land of "I don't know" - because knowing (full stop) requires a definitive conclusion that I'm never sure I'm comfortable with.

Well, that doesn't apply to facts. 'Cause, well, facts (full top) are facts. All else is ponderable elements to be considered.

I'm going to go ponder now.