I have always said the greatest weakness of the Catholic Church is its position on sex. I indend to discuss this on my blog in the next few posts. But before that I need to clear the air on an issue that my good commenter, Anna, thanks I am bitter about. Bitter is the wrong word; disappointment is the word to describe the blogs that pretend to be not what they are. Excuse me, Anna, but I am going to list them. Each blog or blogger I mention brings to mind the words of Joseph Welch to Joe McCarthy: 'Sir, have you no decency.' The blogs or bloggers below have a reckless disregard for that decency Welch spoke about. In no particular order;
Jeff. Can't be disagreed with. Incredibly arrogant. Encourages rather distateful emails.
William. "Cowboy" something. Invites you in and then is told by someone to block commenter. Apparently William is someones "patsy."
Liam: Had possibilities, but became so enchanted with Obama that even Obama supporter is 'out' if even a suggestion is made that Obama might do something different.
"Sandlestrap" something. Combines arrogance and bigotry. Claims to be working on some kind or religion degree. Warning churches. Watch out for this guy.
Garpu. The ultimate sycophant.
Per Christum. Fearful Catholics crowd together on this blog/forum. Probably make their living by selling holy cards or pieces of the True Cross.
Now on to Church and sex. Having defended Catholocism for well over a half century let me state my starting point. The following statements might be disputed but they are agreed to by thinking Catholics, Protestants and non-faith advocates.
One. There is no evidence that Catholic clergy abuse children more than any other occupational group.
Two. There is no evidence that celibacy leads Catholic clergy to more sexual abuse.
Three. There is clear evidence that Catholic clergy abuse males vis-a-via females to an very high degree.
Four. There can be no dispute that the Catholic clergy has a much higher number of homosexuals in its ranks than any other vocation.
I will discuss the church and sex in my next few posts. I am proud to be Catholic. Church and sex issues must be discussed, not be covered by saying "Others do it." Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jack,
ReplyDeleteWell, for starters, I'd like to point out that backing up what you say is kind of a standard in serious debate, so you shouldn't complain too much if people insist you do it before they take you seriously. People online are usually more interested in debate than they are in getting at the heart of someone's perfectly reasonable emotional response to something.
For the most part, this is the way the internet is: No one cares what you say or believe unless you (a) agree with them or (b) have an insight to add to their thinking or (c) they think they have a chance at getting you to agree with them. It's harsh, but it's the way it usually is. You have a tendency to go around disagreeing with people in a way that comes across as combative and unreasonable. You may actually be perfectly reasonable and not intending to be combative, but if you seem that way, then most people will assume that you will always disagree with them and have no insights to add, so that there is no point in talking to you.
I'm not saying that this makes them right, or charitable, or Christian in their actions. I'm just saying that I think this is what's happening. (Although I will say for the record that, of the blogs you listed, the only one I ever recall reading anything on is Jeff's, so I don't know the overall tone of any of the others.)
Now onto some of the sex/Church questions.
>Now my question is simple; why did it pick only the female percentage?
Honestly, I think I would have to read the paper to get a feel for it. But I would assume that just about everyone who reads that 19% of clergy abuse involved females is capable of figuring out that 81% of clergy abuse involved males. The writer might have picked the female percentage because it was lower and therefore sounded better; they might have thrown a coin to decide which one they would mention; there might be some other reason I don't know. Your idea that it is the Church saying they are not sexist, they abuse both sexes – it seems pretty silly to me. I have never heard anyone accuse the Church of being sexist because it abuses mostly boys. I've heard them accuse the Church of putting down women because of its teachings against contraception, against women priests, or even against abortion. But no one in their right mind would think that the Church puts down women because it doesn't sexually abuse them. To think that an author would feel the need to defend against that idea just isn't very believable. I would find it more believable that the author was engaging in a little bit of spin, picking the lower percentage to give people a more positive impression of the Church.
I was naive enough to think (fool, that I am) that maybe Catholic clergy might LESS frequestly involve themselves in such abuse. That mistaken notice is probably due to my age—75.
Actually, I suspect this is more true than you know. Those of us who were born after the 60s have been fed a very strong anti-authoritarian message with our mother's milk. We grew up being told to question everyone and everything, to never believe that someone else is better than we are just because of their position. On the whole, anti-authoritarianism is a stupid message with some very bad effects, but it does have the good effect of immunizing a person against clericalism. And that, Jack, is what I think you have fallen prey to. You thought that clergy are better, holier, than other people just because they were clergy. That's the basis of clericalism. It's not true. Deal with it.
On your four points: I agree with one, two, and three. I think four CAN be disputed; I consider it likely, but not proven, that there are more homosexuals in the Catholic clergy than in the general population. I have not seen really convincing evidence either way, yet.
God bless,
Anna
I'll be very interested to see your next few posts. It's a discussion that many conservatives think is no longer needed... a thing of the past like racism. But they of course are very wrong.
ReplyDeleteWaiting with anticipation.
A Faithful Catholic
Anna,as a nice guy let me try again. First comment got erased. I have never been "combative and unreasonable" on a first comment. However if I am called an accessory to murder I claim the right to resond rather sharply.
ReplyDeleteAs far as cites. Blogs are not legal proceedings You say Jack is combative and unreasonable. Cite please. You say how internet works. Cite please. In presidential debates there are few cites. Debate could not go on if everything had to be "cited". One of the blogs I mentioned posted "Clinton, Obama say kill you children." No cite. Apparently fair because Clinton, Obama, favor "choice"? Is that fair comment?It is warm here today. Do I need cite?
As to number of homosexuals in Catholic clergy, google this. I find no one not even church supporters denying this. Remember we are not talking about sexual abuse. If 25 percnet of sex abuse is againts males and all reputable authoruties give at keast 79 percent of sex abuse by clergy is against males, what conclusion might we find or be forced to find? As you know I am not big on 'absolutes'. Can any of us prove anything with absolute certainty? Of course, not. But we have to live so we can draw almost certain conclusion.
BTW I have been trying to set up blog for Frank for months but to no avail. Do I need cite? Joke. Still working on happy face. Jack