The Catholic Quandary

The Catholic Quandary

By Bill O'Reilly
Thursday, Apr 01, 2010

Over the years, I have occasionally written about being a practicing Roman Catholic, a fact that sometimes leads to incredulous statements like "YOU go to church?" Somehow, I don't believe the question is a compliment.

This is a tough Holy Week for Catholics, as once again the terrible specter of child molestation is in the air. Driven by a series of articles by the New York Times, the church now faces questions about whether Pope Benedict XVI ignored some past abuse cases when he was a cardinal. The evidence is scant, but damning anyway, because of the previous priest-pedophilia scandals.

A number of Catholics have left the church because of the priestly sins, but not me. From the beginning, in Sister Claudia's first grade class, I understood that the Catholic Church was about Jesus, not Father Flannery. Believe me, I saw so many loons in my Catholic school days that I should be a Buddhist. But it is the theology, not church leadership, that keeps me in the fold.

You may remember that I was a driving force in bringing down the villainous Cardinal Law in Boston, a man who allowed child molesting priests to run wild. When Law was forced to resign, I was happy. But then the late Pope John Paul II gave him a cushy job in Rome, where he remains today. If it were up to me, the cardinal would be in prison.

Even though I respected Pope John Paul's holiness, I was deeply disappointed that he did not meet with molestation victims when he visited the United States in 1999. The pope should have done that simply to show devastated American Catholics, and the victims themselves, that he cared and understood their pain. When I publicly criticized Pope John Paul for avoiding the issue, the Catholic League scorched me. And that's fine. They are entitled to their opinion.

Throughout it all, however, I stayed with the church. If you cut through all the bull, the doctrines of treating others as you want to be treated, forgiveness and redemption, and charity for all stand the test of time. Even if the atheists are right and there is no God, the philosophy of Jesus is full-force positive. Live the way he lived, and the world will be a better place.

The actions of others must be considered, of course. But I like this analogy: We've had some pretty bad leaders in America, right? Do they make you want to renounce your citizenship? The United States is not the people who lead it. It is all of us.

Same thing with the Catholic Church. It's not corrupt priests or apathetic leaders in Rome. It's Jesus and his followers, the folks who sit in the pews on Sunday. And that's good enough for me.

TexasBlue wrote:The evidence is scant,

I'm afraid it isn't. Pope Benedict XVI deserves every ounce of vitroil he gets for this. In the 1960s, he penned a document, still in use today, that threatens VICTIMS of child abuse with excommunication if they speak out about their experiences. He has sacked no Bishop and no Priest, he has accepted the resignation of no Bishop and no Priest over this. Furthermore it took him a WHOLE YEAR to offer comment on the Irish abuse trials... either of them. And now, in order to avoid being questioned over any abuse trials going on all over the world, he is claiming diplomatic immunity.

This man is a repugnant piece of sh!t and I hope he dies horribly in a manner worse than the suffering child abuse victims have had to go through. Sorry guys, but I'm giving no quarter here, the man repulses me even more than the position amd I hate Joseph Ratzinger with a vengenace.

You hate the man that much? That's not healthy, Matt. You know my position on religion, but i hate no man in this world.

That said, if more proof can be brought up to explicitly prove that he swept all this under the rug, then he should resign as Pope. Or forced out. I don't know how that works in that religion (and don't care).

FYI, O'Reilly has been pretty damn hard on Cardinals and others in the Catholic Church regarding all this. That's documented. The fact that he's been scolded by other Catholics for voicing concerns and opinions is telling.

TexasBlue wrote:You hate the man that much? That's not healthy, Matt. You know my position on religion, but i hate no man in this world.

That said, if more proof can be brought up to explicitly prove that he swept all this under the rug, then he should resign as Pope. Or forced out. I don't know how that works in that religion (and don't care).

Seriously, the man is nasty and has no redeeming qualities that I can see. Arguably he is personally responsible for the entire child abuse debacle. His position over the affair since the 1960s is indefensible and so far I think he has got off rather lightly so far. The fact that people think he is entitled to worship simply because he is pope makes it even worse.

TexasBlue wrote:FYI, O'Reilly has been pretty damn hard on Cardinals and others in the Catholic Church regarding all this. That's documented. The fact that he's been scolded by other Catholics for voicing concerns and opinions is telling.

Good for him I say. Though how any Catholic can defend the Pope despite knowing everything we know about his role in these child abuse scandals is quite beyond me. I'm repulsed that people do.

I'm sorry if that came across as a little harsh but despite rumours to the contrary we atheists do know right from wrong. And child abuse is most definitely wrong under all circumstance regardless of the position of the person covering it up, defending it or encouraging it. Judging by Ratzinger's history of the issue, he has done all three. If he were anybody but the Pope, people would be calling for his head on a stick. Still think we should cut him some slack?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Seriously, the man is nasty and has no redeeming qualities that I can see. Arguably he is personally responsible for the entire child abuse debacle. His position over the affair since the 1960s is indefensible and so far I think he has got off rather lightly so far. The fact that people think he is entitled to worship simply because he is pope makes it even worse.

I'll wait till more crap comes into the light. I'm usually like that when i comes to things like this. If proven true, the man should resign immediately. There should be a court to prosecute this, too. N Priest gets away with it when charge3d here in the USA.

I never quite understood Catholics to begin with. Praying to Mary and all that.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I'm sorry if that came across as a little harsh but despite rumours to the contrary we atheists do know right from wrong. And child abuse is most definitely wrong under all circumstance regardless of the position of the person covering it up, defending it or encouraging it. Judging by Ratzinger's history of the issue, he has done all three. If he were anybody but the Pope, people would be calling for his head on a stick. Still think we should cut him some slack?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm

No apology necessary. I'm not offended personally. Maybe 1old might be.

I never once thought an atheist has no morals. That's the religious that feel that way.

Interesting article.

What do you make of these priests? I've always been one to think they're more twisted than one can understand. Here's what i mean; i find molestation reprehensible to start with. But a priest (or anyone for that matter) taking advantage of a kid of the same sex is absolutely crazy. It's almost a homosexual thing in my opinion. And again,. i don't have anything against gays and never have. I just find it strange to molest a child of the same sex much less one of the opposite sex.

Just thoughts that crossed my mind.

I would imagine that has more to do with availibility than anything else. Look at an average Catholic choir, there are generally far more boys than girls so it would make sense that most victims would be male.

I know you don't think that atheists are immoral Tex, comment wasn't directed at you.

And as for 1oldminer, you know my feelings about his opinion an anything

The thing is, the Pope won't be prosecuted and can't be now because he has claimed diplomatic immunity as a head of state. The one man who is responsible for this is going to evade justice and people are saying we should stop picking on him.

Yeah and the Pope is in till he dies as far as i know. I don't know if there's a body within the church that could remove a Pope.

That's probably it on the priests. It's all pedophilia, imo. I wonder what the effect would be if they allowed priests to marry... if these types of cases would drop to a low point.

TexasBlue wrote:Yeah and the Pope is in till he dies as far as i know. I don't know if there's a body within the church that could remove a Pope.

I think he can resign but usually they do so through poor health and inability to carry on. Nobody can force his resignation.

TexasBlue wrote:That's probably it on the priests. It's all pedophilia, imo. I wonder what the effect would be if they allowed priests to marry... if these types of cases would drop to a low point.

Church of England ministers can marry. There have been some allegations but nothing on this scope and the Anglican Communion is just as global as the Catholic Church.

There's a religion here that's like the Catholics but i can't remember the name of them. They have all the hierarchy except a Pope of course. I was born into the Lutheran Church.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:FYI, O'Reilly has been pretty damn hard on Cardinals and others in the Catholic Church regarding all this. That's documented. The fact that he's been scolded by other Catholics for voicing concerns and opinions is telling.

Good for him I say. Though how any Catholic can defend the Pope despite knowing everything we know about his role in these child abuse scandals is quite beyond me. I'm repulsed that people do.

I'm sorry if that came across as a little harsh but despite rumours to the contrary we atheists do know right from wrong. And child abuse is most definitely wrong under all circumstance regardless of the position of the person covering it up, defending it or encouraging it. Judging by Ratzinger's history of the issue, he has done all three. If he were anybody but the Pope, people would be calling for his head on a stick. Still think we should cut him some slack?

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm[/quote[/url]]



I agree with all you say, and echo your rhetorical question of how can any Catholic defend the Pope -- current or otherwise. However, what would you like seen done to the Vatican...?

Many institutions have been guilty of crimes, from The House of Windsor to The presidency of the U.S. . Likewise, should these establishments be demolished for their transgressions?

I'm not saying the Vatican should be dissolved but to quote cable2... there is the rule of law. In western society, child abuse is illegal. Under international law, child abuse is illegal. Under international law, conspiracy to cover up a crime is illegal. Why does the Pope deserve exemption from this? Fact remains that Josef Ratzinger has been at the heart of the conspiracy to conceal systematic child abuse for over fifty years. He has moved priests to other parishes and he himself penned a document that states that victims of child abuse should be threatened with excommunication if they spoke out.

Tell me why he should avoid criminal charges for this?

alland wrote:The House of Windsor

What has the royal family done?

As a Catholic, I find the actions of the Pope despicable. If the church wanted to clear its image, it should excommunicate everybody that had something to do with child molestation and turn them over to the law enforcement of the country the incidents occurred in.

I'll still go to church every once in a while because I like the priest here and he has spoken out against the incidents, but I will not give to the church. Seems like the only language the Vatican understands is money, and once you cut that off, they'll panic and think about what they have done wrong.

I find Ratzinger too conservative to begin with, and turns out I was right.

TexasBlue wrote:There's a religion here that's like the Catholics but i can't remember the name of them. They have all the hierarchy except a Pope of course. I was born into the Lutheran Church.

The Calvinists? Could also be the Anglo-Catholics.

Both are very Catholic in tradition and hierarchy but do not have a pope. Anglo-Catholicism is very much based on the church as founded by Henry VIII

BubbleBliss wrote:I find Ratzinger too conservative to begin with, and turns out I was right.

From one perspective, a group of people frightened about losing everything they stood for voted in an extremist.

Something all too familiar about that all through human history.

BubbleBliss wrote:
I find Ratzinger too conservative to begin with, and turns out I was right.

Agreed, but can you name one person in the Vatican hierarcy who is truly liberal or progressive?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:There's a religion here that's like the Catholics but i can't remember the name of them. They have all the hierarchy except a Pope of course. I was born into the Lutheran Church.

The Calvinists? Could also be the Anglo-Catholics.

Both are very Catholic in tradition and hierarchy but do not have a pope. Anglo-Catholicism is very much based on the church as founded by Henry VIII

I had to look it up. I was lazy when i made that statement way back when. It's Episcopalian's.

alland wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
I find Ratzinger too conservative to begin with, and turns out I was right.

Agreed, but can you name one person in the Vatican hierarcy who is truly liberal or progressive?

No, but I am not really on top of my game when it comes to knowledge about the Cardinals and high ranking church officials.