Defending the Catholic Church and the sexual abuse of children: A timely reminder
Should posters who criticize priests who've raped children not refer to the fact that they're Catholic?
Not point the finger at the Church, its policy of protecting child predators and its history of institutionalized child sexual abuse?
We're told that priests have been defrocked, as if that's enough.
That they're individuals who don't 'represent' the Church.
We're told it's old news, even though reports of abuse continue.
That Pope Francis met with a few survivors and considers the charges “very grave crimes” comparable only to a priest celebrating a "black Mass" as part of a Satanic ritual.
That the new Pope is going make sure perpetrators face justice, even though all they've done is the announce the formation of an advisory panel while refusing to surrender those they're still protecting.
Those of us who are frustrated at the lack of progress made by the Vatican are in good company:
The committee is gravely concerned that the Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by, and the impunity of, the perpetrators
Due to a code of silence imposed on all members of the clergy under penalty of excommunication, cases of child sexual abuse have hardly ever been reported to the law enforcement authorities in the countries where such crimes occurred.
Committee chair, Kirsten Sandberg enumerated some major findings, that pedophile priests were sent to new parishes or other countries without police being informed, that the Vatican never insisted on bishops reporting abuse to police, and that known abusers still have access to children. Barbara Blaine of SNAP said,
"This report gives hope to the hundreds of thousands of deeply wounded and still suffering clergy sex abuse victims across the world. Now it's up to secular officials to follow the U.N.'s lead and step in to safeguard the vulnerable because Catholic officials are either incapable or unwilling to do so."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal
Why should we refrain from posting about priests who use their authority to rape children in the Religion forum?
Because other authority figures rape kids too?
Really?
For people like Andrew Brown and others who defend the Catholic Church by using the "But everyone else does it" excuse I give you Greta Christina:
If everyone else jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it too?
And if everyone else raped children, would you defend it?
The child rape scandal in the Catholic Church (like Stephen Fry, I am no longer willing to call it pedophilia or molestation or child abuse) has been heating up lately, with new stories about the widespread rape of children by priests in Germany, an admission from the senior cleric in Ireland that he was present at meetings where two abused teenagers were made to sign vows of silence, questions about Pope Benedict’s handling of an abuse case when he was an archbishop, and more.
So via Pharyngula, we have the story of one Andrew Brown of the Guardian, who has written a defense of the Catholic Church child rape scandal and an excoriation of those who are condemning it… on the grounds that everyone else does it, too.
"From this it emerges that the frequency of child abuse among Catholic priests is not remarkable…"
and:
"This is vile, but whether it is more vile than the record of any other profession is not obvious."
and:
"There are, however, some fragments of figures from the outside world suggesting that not many professions do better. "
Etc.
***
What makes the Catholic Church child rape scandal so morally repugnant, and what is making it have the effect of turning people away from the Catholic Church, is not the rapes themselves. Of course the rapes themselves are morally repugnant. And of course we need to be looking at whether there is some institutional force that makes Catholic priests more likely to rape children than other people in positions of trust and authority: such as the celibacy requirement for the priesthood, or the Church’s fear and loathing of sexuality as a central part of their theology, or the special power that priests have because they purport to have a special line to God, or religion’s veneration and armor against criticism which makes people less comfortable making accusations against it. (Indeed, it’s fair to look at whether it’s even true that Catholic priests rape children at a higher rate than other trusted authority figures.) But it is certainly the case that child rape does occur in other fields where adults are in positions of trust and authority with children: teachers, coaches, etc. Brown’s not wrong about that.
That is not where the depth of the scandal lies. What makes the Catholic child rape scandal so morally repugnant, and what is giving it the effect of turning people away from the Catholic Church in horror, is the way the Church handled it.
The Church knew about widespread reports of priests repeatedly molesting children… and instead of acting to protect the children, they acted to protect the priests, and themselves. Thus deliberately and knowingly putting more children in the way of known child rapists, solely for their pure self-interest.
Repeatedly. Time and time again. In every part of the world. As a cold-blooded matter of Church policy.
That is the scandal.
The fact that some adults in positions of trust and authority over children violated that trust by raping them? That is a tragedy. The fact that the Catholic Church knew about it — and instead of reporting the child rapists to the police, they deliberately shielded them from detection and criminal investigation? The fact that the Church moved child rapists from parish to parish, thus exposing even more children to them? The fact that they lied to law enforcement, concealed evidence, even paid off witnesses… purely to protect their organization from looking bad?
That, Mr. Brown, is the scandal.
You fucking moral imbecile.
Save the outrage for the criminals, not those that are outraged by their crimes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
My alleged failure to criticize the RCC at a level you consider sufficient constitutes being an "apologist?" An apology is an active defense or explanation, and one who makes such a statement is an apologist. Somehow I don't recall ever doing that in relation to the pedophile priests scandal.
But I'd be happy to accept your definition that not doing something is a positive action. (There's a bit of irony in that I'm sure you've missed.) I'm not a scientist, but according to you,k that shouldn't stop me from winning the Nobel Prize for oh, say, physics. When do I fly to Stockholm? More to the point, when do I get the money?
Seriously, this is what you learned as a debater and debate coach? 
If I am reading this correctly father Doyle was thrown out on his ear for revealing this? And we wonder why the system is stifled and there isn't justice for the victims.
You should read my sourced material instead of just dismissing out of hand? You may learn something that you didn't know before? Since it isn't my expertise but that of the LA Times reporter that completed a huge series on overpopulation and about how the church has refused to allow contraception in third world countries.
Yes because it's the Catholic Church that is the real victim here. Thank God it has you to defend it on DU.
by bringing newly consecrated Lutheran bishops into the Succession. The consecrators of a new Lutheran bishop now include an Episcopal bishop and vice-versa.
The Methodists better run while they can.
Have some caffeine, you might feel better. 
