Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

The Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal and the Paradoxical Legacy of Pope John Paul II

by Cesar Baldelomar 04-08-2010 | 1:30pm
Print
29 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

100406-jp2The Catholic church is reeling from the several sexual abuse allegations that have come to light over the past three months. Downplaying the severity of this scandal will only further damage the already beleaguered church's image and credibility. Many in the media blame Pope Benedict XVI for the mismanagement of the sexual abuse crisis. Pope Benedict certainly deserves some blame for his relative indifference to the sexual abuse allegations while prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But what about his predecessor, Pope John Paul II? Questions are now swirling in the media over John Paul's involvement in the cover-up of sexual abuse allegations. The time has come to reconsider the legacy of this paradoxical public figure. And with the Vatican proceeding with unusual haste to beatify and then canonize the late pontiff, justice and compassion for the victims demand that we examine his role in the sexual abuse crisis.

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

In his book Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right, journalist E.J. Dionne Jr. claims that "if so much of what the pope did in relation to the world outside the Church was progressive, so much of what he did inside it was conservative."

His encyclicals challenged both socialism and capitalism and what he called the "Culture of Death." He advocated for the rights of the poor and socially marginalized, and his 1990 World Day of Peace message, Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation, remains, despite its weaknesses, perhaps the most significant ecological statement ever issued by a pope. Many scholars and journalists also cite his influence in the collapse of communism in Europe.

Yet, Dionne tells us, "The pope's insistence on democracy outside the Church

29 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: prgrs_ev

04-09-2010 @ 4:30am

Martin Luther King, Jr was not a pedophile...

by: outragex

04-09-2010 @ 7:29pm

For a great discussion of the return to authoritarian church government and conservative theology after Vatican II, read "Practicing Catholic" by Carroll. It really helped me as a Protestant who appreciates the Catholic Church to understand the struggle between modernism and reactionism in that great church.

IMO-There is really no way to justify the Catholic church's history with child abuse. The church failed to protect the vulnerable in its care in many instances, and then chose coverup versus justice and healing for the victims. Also, the coverups allowed many additional children to be victimized. None of this is consistent with Christianity whatsoever.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:05pm

And meanwhile many of the Founding Fathers, whom I heard praised in my overtly religious education almost as giants of the Christian faith, participated in gross sexual misconduct as well, the full extent to which is not known. It does not discredit the ideas the worked for or the foundations they laid for a practical Democracy. I fail to see how admiration for MLK's work in civil rights is any less unjustified than admiration for Franklin, Jefferson, or the like. There is also a decided difference between something consensual and sexual abuse. Both have their issues, of course. Many have said, and I agree, that sexual abuse is the worst thing you can do to another human being. It is the corruption of power at its worst, and it destroys both the one being abused and the abuser.

However, I would like to know where you got the information about MLK being a known womanizer. This isn't meant as a challenge, at all. It's just the first I have heard about it. I'd like to take a look at the information, just to see what exactly was said.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:04pm

And meanwhile many of the Founding Fathers, whom I heard praised in my overtly religious education almost as giants of the Christian faith, participated in gross sexual misconduct as well, the full extent to which is not known. It does not discredit the ideas the worked for or the foundations they laid for a practical Democracy. I fail to see how admiration for MLK's work in civil rights is any less unjustified than admiration for Franklin, Jefferson, or the like. There is also a decided difference between something consensual and sexual abuse. Both have their issues, of course. Many have said, and I agree, that sexual abuse is the worst thing you can do to another human being. It is the corruption of power at its worst, and it destroys both the one being abused and the abuser.

However, I would like to know where you got the information about MLK being a known womanizer. This isn't meant as a challenge, at all. It's just the first I have heard about it. I'd like to take a look at the information, just to see what exactly was said.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:14pm

Based on the article, I don't think he is arguing with the fact that the Pope was conservative, but that he used his beliefs to shut down dissension and discouraged openness. I believe his argument is not so much that being conservative was wrong, but that the WAY he strong-armed the church into silence. History has proven such approaches to be problematic. His representation of the conservatives could be misconstrued, but I don't think the author intended it to be an attack on conservatism, but authoritarian rule. The information about his conservative reactions was intended, I believe, to be informative so people could draw the lines and see the possible duplicitous nature of how he managed.

I agree with you final statement.... the two opposing ways of approaching things (one inside the Church, another outside) suggest a sort of superficiality to everything he did. It is a little daunting for me to consider as well, because I have admired Pope John Paul II in the past very much. I found this piece to be indicative of a problem not because of his conservatism, but because the author is right that such a strong-arm approach would lead to greater silence and more abuse.

by: Patricia75

04-08-2010 @ 7:24pm

I have been very disappointed in the Vatican's handling of the sexual abuse cases. Now it acts like it is the victim when people and the media are trying to find out the truth. It seems more concerned with protecting the reputation of an institution than the abuse victims. Nothing has been said at the local level by my parish priest or bishop that would help us confused and angry Catholics. I believe if women had been allowed in the Catholic hierarchy, then maybe someone would have cracked the insulation and spoken up for the children. Maybe the Catholic women need to stop volunteering and stop writing the checks to show that the Vatican's current way of insulation and claiming it is the victim is not acceptable.

by: Nutritionpower

04-08-2010 @ 7:11pm

What does conservative have to do with it? I am conservative. I don't believe in abortion, I do believe in the inerrant word of God. Truly conservative people do not believe in sexual abuse, and do believe that sexual offenders should be prosecuted and removed from children. It sounds like his problem was not with being conservative, but with caring more about the appearance of the Church, than with the trueness of the Church to the Faith.

by: Ed_Cyzewski

04-08-2010 @ 7:05pm

Cesar, thanks for sharing this difficult post with so much grace. It's a tough topic to tackle. As a former Catholic and current Protestant, such hierarchy problems and authoritarianism are part of my own preference for smaller, organic home churches and simple church meetings that focus on mission. I admit that these forms of church are not perfect and have their own problems, but once the central issues are dealt with this matter, I think we need to discuss the role of our ecclesiology in these scandals. Would a different ecclesiology have enabled the church to react in a more constructive manner?

by: pobrezaamada

04-08-2010 @ 4:37pm

Cesar,
I'm amazed and yet not that no one is commenting on this blog. I'm amazed because I find what you wrote about Pope John Paul II very informative. I didn't know this before! I thought he was an okay guy, but apparently there was another half of the story I didn't know. I knew he had appointed Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI, of course), to maintain and preserve the theology and legacy he had left behind and that he was viewed as a "transitional" pope. But your blog now fills in more colors of that picture.

I'm also not amazed that no one is commenting because this site's commentary is mostly owned by evangelicals. They are often either not too interested in the Catholic Church or they are more than willing to sit in on judgment of the Catholic Church (sadly to say). But not all are this way, of course (i.e. yours truly).

Thank you for your blog, though. I pray the same for the Catholic Church. I believe the resurfacing of the sexual abuse scandal is very damaging for the Catholic Church, as well. It's very disturbing indeed and rather embarrassing. But who decided they should reinstate these priests secretly? Maybe this is not exactly the way it went down, but that is my current understanding. Please correct me if needed.

by: 1jsm5

04-11-2010 @ 7:28pm

I feel the Catholic Church sealed its fate when it allied with the earthly powers of the Roman Empire and defined the bishop of Rome as "the vicar of Christ on earth." Since that time they have succumbed to the temptations of secular presence and been unable to carry out the Christian messages of simplicity and faithfulness. Can't serve God and Mammon.

by: Ivriniel

04-09-2010 @ 11:02pm

The issue here is that Conservative elements in the Catholic Church want things to be like they were prior to Vatican II with the hierarchy firmly in control, and an unquestioning laity.

The thing with this sort of environment is that makes it easier for coverups to occur.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:33pm

Nutritionpower,
Because this is all about ideology. You will NEVER see a conservative Catholic perspective on a Sojo blog. They best be careful, as their ideological slip continues to show.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:31pm

Martin Luther King was a known womanizer, and it is believed that he was with other women on the night before his death. That's never gotten in the way of the on-going admiration of King and his work for civil rights and social justice.

This is just another example of the biased nature of Sojourners.

by: Ivriniel

04-09-2010 @ 3:40pm

John Paul II also appointed Cardinal Bernard Law as ArchPriest of Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, after Law resigned as Archbishop of Boston in the wake of the sexual abuse scandal. Documents showed that Law had a active role in covering sexual abuse by priests.

by: outragex

04-09-2010 @ 7:29pm

For a great discussion of the return to authoritarian church government and conservative theology after Vatican II, read "Practicing Catholic" by Carroll. It really helped me as a Protestant who appreciates the Catholic Church to understand the struggle between modernism and reactionism in that great church.

IMO-There is really no way to justify the Catholic church's history with child abuse. The church failed to protect the vulnerable in its care in many instances, and then chose coverup versus justice and healing for the victims. Also, the coverups allowed many additional children to be victimized. None of this is consistent with Christianity whatsoever.

by: Patricia75

04-08-2010 @ 7:24pm

I have been very disappointed in the Vatican's handling of the sexual abuse cases. Now it acts like it is the victim when people and the media are trying to find out the truth. It seems more concerned with protecting the reputation of an institution than the abuse victims. Nothing has been said at the local level by my parish priest or bishop that would help us confused and angry Catholics. I believe if women had been allowed in the Catholic hierarchy, then maybe someone would have cracked the insulation and spoken up for the children. Maybe the Catholic women need to stop volunteering and stop writing the checks to show that the Vatican's current way of insulation and claiming it is the victim is not acceptable.

by: Nutritionpower

04-08-2010 @ 7:11pm

What does conservative have to do with it? I am conservative. I don't believe in abortion, I do believe in the inerrant word of God. Truly conservative people do not believe in sexual abuse, and do believe that sexual offenders should be prosecuted and removed from children. It sounds like his problem was not with being conservative, but with caring more about the appearance of the Church, than with the trueness of the Church to the Faith.

by: Ed_Cyzewski

04-08-2010 @ 7:05pm

Cesar, thanks for sharing this difficult post with so much grace. It's a tough topic to tackle. As a former Catholic and current Protestant, such hierarchy problems and authoritarianism are part of my own preference for smaller, organic home churches and simple church meetings that focus on mission. I admit that these forms of church are not perfect and have their own problems, but once the central issues are dealt with this matter, I think we need to discuss the role of our ecclesiology in these scandals. Would a different ecclesiology have enabled the church to react in a more constructive manner?

by: uberVU - social comments

04-09-2010 @ 1:37am

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by _HolySpirit_: RT @sojourners: The Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal and the Paradoxical Legacy of Pope John Paul II http://su.pr/1MVsCw...

by: Ivriniel

04-09-2010 @ 11:02pm

The issue here is that Conservative elements in the Catholic Church want things to be like they were prior to Vatican II with the hierarchy firmly in control, and an unquestioning laity.

The thing with this sort of environment is that makes it easier for coverups to occur.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:33pm

Nutritionpower,
Because this is all about ideology. You will NEVER see a conservative Catholic perspective on a Sojo blog. They best be careful, as their ideological slip continues to show.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:31pm

Martin Luther King was a known womanizer, and it is believed that he was with other women on the night before his death. That's never gotten in the way of the on-going admiration of King and his work for civil rights and social justice.

This is just another example of the biased nature of Sojourners.

by: prgrs_ev

04-09-2010 @ 4:30am

Martin Luther King, Jr was not a pedophile...

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:05pm

And meanwhile many of the Founding Fathers, whom I heard praised in my overtly religious education almost as giants of the Christian faith, participated in gross sexual misconduct as well, the full extent to which is not known. It does not discredit the ideas the worked for or the foundations they laid for a practical Democracy. I fail to see how admiration for MLK's work in civil rights is any less unjustified than admiration for Franklin, Jefferson, or the like. There is also a decided difference between something consensual and sexual abuse. Both have their issues, of course. Many have said, and I agree, that sexual abuse is the worst thing you can do to another human being. It is the corruption of power at its worst, and it destroys both the one being abused and the abuser.

However, I would like to know where you got the information about MLK being a known womanizer. This isn't meant as a challenge, at all. It's just the first I have heard about it. I'd like to take a look at the information, just to see what exactly was said.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:04pm

And meanwhile many of the Founding Fathers, whom I heard praised in my overtly religious education almost as giants of the Christian faith, participated in gross sexual misconduct as well, the full extent to which is not known. It does not discredit the ideas the worked for or the foundations they laid for a practical Democracy. I fail to see how admiration for MLK's work in civil rights is any less unjustified than admiration for Franklin, Jefferson, or the like. There is also a decided difference between something consensual and sexual abuse. Both have their issues, of course. Many have said, and I agree, that sexual abuse is the worst thing you can do to another human being. It is the corruption of power at its worst, and it destroys both the one being abused and the abuser.

However, I would like to know where you got the information about MLK being a known womanizer. This isn't meant as a challenge, at all. It's just the first I have heard about it. I'd like to take a look at the information, just to see what exactly was said.

by: pobrezaamada

04-08-2010 @ 4:37pm

Cesar,
I'm amazed and yet not that no one is commenting on this blog. I'm amazed because I find what you wrote about Pope John Paul II very informative. I didn't know this before! I thought he was an okay guy, but apparently there was another half of the story I didn't know. I knew he had appointed Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI, of course), to maintain and preserve the theology and legacy he had left behind and that he was viewed as a "transitional" pope. But your blog now fills in more colors of that picture.

I'm also not amazed that no one is commenting because this site's commentary is mostly owned by evangelicals. They are often either not too interested in the Catholic Church or they are more than willing to sit in on judgment of the Catholic Church (sadly to say). But not all are this way, of course (i.e. yours truly).

Thank you for your blog, though. I pray the same for the Catholic Church. I believe the resurfacing of the sexual abuse scandal is very damaging for the Catholic Church, as well. It's very disturbing indeed and rather embarrassing. But who decided they should reinstate these priests secretly? Maybe this is not exactly the way it went down, but that is my current understanding. Please correct me if needed.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:14pm

Based on the article, I don't think he is arguing with the fact that the Pope was conservative, but that he used his beliefs to shut down dissension and discouraged openness. I believe his argument is not so much that being conservative was wrong, but that the WAY he strong-armed the church into silence. History has proven such approaches to be problematic. His representation of the conservatives could be misconstrued, but I don't think the author intended it to be an attack on conservatism, but authoritarian rule. The information about his conservative reactions was intended, I believe, to be informative so people could draw the lines and see the possible duplicitous nature of how he managed.

I agree with you final statement.... the two opposing ways of approaching things (one inside the Church, another outside) suggest a sort of superficiality to everything he did. It is a little daunting for me to consider as well, because I have admired Pope John Paul II in the past very much. I found this piece to be indicative of a problem not because of his conservatism, but because the author is right that such a strong-arm approach would lead to greater silence and more abuse.

by: 1jsm5

04-11-2010 @ 7:28pm

I feel the Catholic Church sealed its fate when it allied with the earthly powers of the Roman Empire and defined the bishop of Rome as "the vicar of Christ on earth." Since that time they have succumbed to the temptations of secular presence and been unable to carry out the Christian messages of simplicity and faithfulness. Can't serve God and Mammon.

by: Ivriniel

04-09-2010 @ 3:40pm

John Paul II also appointed Cardinal Bernard Law as ArchPriest of Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, after Law resigned as Archbishop of Boston in the wake of the sexual abuse scandal. Documents showed that Law had a active role in covering sexual abuse by priests.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: pobrezaamada

04-08-2010 @ 4:37pm

Cesar,
I'm amazed and yet not that no one is commenting on this blog. I'm amazed because I find what you wrote about Pope John Paul II very informative. I didn't know this before! I thought he was an okay guy, but apparently there was another half of the story I didn't know. I knew he had appointed Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI, of course), to maintain and preserve the theology and legacy he had left behind and that he was viewed as a "transitional" pope. But your blog now fills in more colors of that picture.

I'm also not amazed that no one is commenting because this site's commentary is mostly owned by evangelicals. They are often either not too interested in the Catholic Church or they are more than willing to sit in on judgment of the Catholic Church (sadly to say). But not all are this way, of course (i.e. yours truly).

Thank you for your blog, though. I pray the same for the Catholic Church. I believe the resurfacing of the sexual abuse scandal is very damaging for the Catholic Church, as well. It's very disturbing indeed and rather embarrassing. But who decided they should reinstate these priests secretly? Maybe this is not exactly the way it went down, but that is my current understanding. Please correct me if needed.

by: pobrezaamada

04-08-2010 @ 4:37pm

Cesar,
I'm amazed and yet not that no one is commenting on this blog. I'm amazed because I find what you wrote about Pope John Paul II very informative. I didn't know this before! I thought he was an okay guy, but apparently there was another half of the story I didn't know. I knew he had appointed Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI, of course), to maintain and preserve the theology and legacy he had left behind and that he was viewed as a "transitional" pope. But your blog now fills in more colors of that picture.

I'm also not amazed that no one is commenting because this site's commentary is mostly owned by evangelicals. They are often either not too interested in the Catholic Church or they are more than willing to sit in on judgment of the Catholic Church (sadly to say). But not all are this way, of course (i.e. yours truly).

Thank you for your blog, though. I pray the same for the Catholic Church. I believe the resurfacing of the sexual abuse scandal is very damaging for the Catholic Church, as well. It's very disturbing indeed and rather embarrassing. But who decided they should reinstate these priests secretly? Maybe this is not exactly the way it went down, but that is my current understanding. Please correct me if needed.

by: Ed_Cyzewski

04-08-2010 @ 7:05pm

Cesar, thanks for sharing this difficult post with so much grace. It's a tough topic to tackle. As a former Catholic and current Protestant, such hierarchy problems and authoritarianism are part of my own preference for smaller, organic home churches and simple church meetings that focus on mission. I admit that these forms of church are not perfect and have their own problems, but once the central issues are dealt with this matter, I think we need to discuss the role of our ecclesiology in these scandals. Would a different ecclesiology have enabled the church to react in a more constructive manner?

by: Ed_Cyzewski

04-08-2010 @ 7:05pm

Cesar, thanks for sharing this difficult post with so much grace. It's a tough topic to tackle. As a former Catholic and current Protestant, such hierarchy problems and authoritarianism are part of my own preference for smaller, organic home churches and simple church meetings that focus on mission. I admit that these forms of church are not perfect and have their own problems, but once the central issues are dealt with this matter, I think we need to discuss the role of our ecclesiology in these scandals. Would a different ecclesiology have enabled the church to react in a more constructive manner?

by: Nutritionpower

04-08-2010 @ 7:11pm

What does conservative have to do with it? I am conservative. I don't believe in abortion, I do believe in the inerrant word of God. Truly conservative people do not believe in sexual abuse, and do believe that sexual offenders should be prosecuted and removed from children. It sounds like his problem was not with being conservative, but with caring more about the appearance of the Church, than with the trueness of the Church to the Faith.

by: Nutritionpower

04-08-2010 @ 7:11pm

What does conservative have to do with it? I am conservative. I don't believe in abortion, I do believe in the inerrant word of God. Truly conservative people do not believe in sexual abuse, and do believe that sexual offenders should be prosecuted and removed from children. It sounds like his problem was not with being conservative, but with caring more about the appearance of the Church, than with the trueness of the Church to the Faith.

by: Patricia75

04-08-2010 @ 7:24pm

I have been very disappointed in the Vatican's handling of the sexual abuse cases. Now it acts like it is the victim when people and the media are trying to find out the truth. It seems more concerned with protecting the reputation of an institution than the abuse victims. Nothing has been said at the local level by my parish priest or bishop that would help us confused and angry Catholics. I believe if women had been allowed in the Catholic hierarchy, then maybe someone would have cracked the insulation and spoken up for the children. Maybe the Catholic women need to stop volunteering and stop writing the checks to show that the Vatican's current way of insulation and claiming it is the victim is not acceptable.

by: Patricia75

04-08-2010 @ 7:24pm

I have been very disappointed in the Vatican's handling of the sexual abuse cases. Now it acts like it is the victim when people and the media are trying to find out the truth. It seems more concerned with protecting the reputation of an institution than the abuse victims. Nothing has been said at the local level by my parish priest or bishop that would help us confused and angry Catholics. I believe if women had been allowed in the Catholic hierarchy, then maybe someone would have cracked the insulation and spoken up for the children. Maybe the Catholic women need to stop volunteering and stop writing the checks to show that the Vatican's current way of insulation and claiming it is the victim is not acceptable.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:31pm

Martin Luther King was a known womanizer, and it is believed that he was with other women on the night before his death. That's never gotten in the way of the on-going admiration of King and his work for civil rights and social justice.

This is just another example of the biased nature of Sojourners.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:31pm

Martin Luther King was a known womanizer, and it is believed that he was with other women on the night before his death. That's never gotten in the way of the on-going admiration of King and his work for civil rights and social justice.

This is just another example of the biased nature of Sojourners.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:33pm

Nutritionpower,
Because this is all about ideology. You will NEVER see a conservative Catholic perspective on a Sojo blog. They best be careful, as their ideological slip continues to show.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:33pm

Nutritionpower,
Because this is all about ideology. You will NEVER see a conservative Catholic perspective on a Sojo blog. They best be careful, as their ideological slip continues to show.

by: uberVU - social comments

04-09-2010 @ 1:37am

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by _HolySpirit_: RT @sojourners: The Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal and the Paradoxical Legacy of Pope John Paul II http://su.pr/1MVsCw...

by: prgrs_ev

04-09-2010 @ 4:30am

Martin Luther King, Jr was not a pedophile...

by: prgrs_ev

04-09-2010 @ 4:30am

Martin Luther King, Jr was not a pedophile...

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:04pm

And meanwhile many of the Founding Fathers, whom I heard praised in my overtly religious education almost as giants of the Christian faith, participated in gross sexual misconduct as well, the full extent to which is not known. It does not discredit the ideas the worked for or the foundations they laid for a practical Democracy. I fail to see how admiration for MLK's work in civil rights is any less unjustified than admiration for Franklin, Jefferson, or the like. There is also a decided difference between something consensual and sexual abuse. Both have their issues, of course. Many have said, and I agree, that sexual abuse is the worst thing you can do to another human being. It is the corruption of power at its worst, and it destroys both the one being abused and the abuser.

However, I would like to know where you got the information about MLK being a known womanizer. This isn't meant as a challenge, at all. It's just the first I have heard about it. I'd like to take a look at the information, just to see what exactly was said.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:04pm

And meanwhile many of the Founding Fathers, whom I heard praised in my overtly religious education almost as giants of the Christian faith, participated in gross sexual misconduct as well, the full extent to which is not known. It does not discredit the ideas the worked for or the foundations they laid for a practical Democracy. I fail to see how admiration for MLK's work in civil rights is any less unjustified than admiration for Franklin, Jefferson, or the like. There is also a decided difference between something consensual and sexual abuse. Both have their issues, of course. Many have said, and I agree, that sexual abuse is the worst thing you can do to another human being. It is the corruption of power at its worst, and it destroys both the one being abused and the abuser.

However, I would like to know where you got the information about MLK being a known womanizer. This isn't meant as a challenge, at all. It's just the first I have heard about it. I'd like to take a look at the information, just to see what exactly was said.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:05pm

And meanwhile many of the Founding Fathers, whom I heard praised in my overtly religious education almost as giants of the Christian faith, participated in gross sexual misconduct as well, the full extent to which is not known. It does not discredit the ideas the worked for or the foundations they laid for a practical Democracy. I fail to see how admiration for MLK's work in civil rights is any less unjustified than admiration for Franklin, Jefferson, or the like. There is also a decided difference between something consensual and sexual abuse. Both have their issues, of course. Many have said, and I agree, that sexual abuse is the worst thing you can do to another human being. It is the corruption of power at its worst, and it destroys both the one being abused and the abuser.

However, I would like to know where you got the information about MLK being a known womanizer. This isn't meant as a challenge, at all. It's just the first I have heard about it. I'd like to take a look at the information, just to see what exactly was said.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:05pm

And meanwhile many of the Founding Fathers, whom I heard praised in my overtly religious education almost as giants of the Christian faith, participated in gross sexual misconduct as well, the full extent to which is not known. It does not discredit the ideas the worked for or the foundations they laid for a practical Democracy. I fail to see how admiration for MLK's work in civil rights is any less unjustified than admiration for Franklin, Jefferson, or the like. There is also a decided difference between something consensual and sexual abuse. Both have their issues, of course. Many have said, and I agree, that sexual abuse is the worst thing you can do to another human being. It is the corruption of power at its worst, and it destroys both the one being abused and the abuser.

However, I would like to know where you got the information about MLK being a known womanizer. This isn't meant as a challenge, at all. It's just the first I have heard about it. I'd like to take a look at the information, just to see what exactly was said.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:14pm

Based on the article, I don't think he is arguing with the fact that the Pope was conservative, but that he used his beliefs to shut down dissension and discouraged openness. I believe his argument is not so much that being conservative was wrong, but that the WAY he strong-armed the church into silence. History has proven such approaches to be problematic. His representation of the conservatives could be misconstrued, but I don't think the author intended it to be an attack on conservatism, but authoritarian rule. The information about his conservative reactions was intended, I believe, to be informative so people could draw the lines and see the possible duplicitous nature of how he managed.

I agree with you final statement.... the two opposing ways of approaching things (one inside the Church, another outside) suggest a sort of superficiality to everything he did. It is a little daunting for me to consider as well, because I have admired Pope John Paul II in the past very much. I found this piece to be indicative of a problem not because of his conservatism, but because the author is right that such a strong-arm approach would lead to greater silence and more abuse.

by: MommaN

04-09-2010 @ 2:14pm

Based on the article, I don't think he is arguing with the fact that the Pope was conservative, but that he used his beliefs to shut down dissension and discouraged openness. I believe his argument is not so much that being conservative was wrong, but that the WAY he strong-armed the church into silence. History has proven such approaches to be problematic. His representation of the conservatives could be misconstrued, but I don't think the author intended it to be an attack on conservatism, but authoritarian rule. The information about his conservative reactions was intended, I believe, to be informative so people could draw the lines and see the possible duplicitous nature of how he managed.

I agree with you final statement.... the two opposing ways of approaching things (one inside the Church, another outside) suggest a sort of superficiality to everything he did. It is a little daunting for me to consider as well, because I have admired Pope John Paul II in the past very much. I found this piece to be indicative of a problem not because of his conservatism, but because the author is right that such a strong-arm approach would lead to greater silence and more abuse.

by: Ivriniel

04-09-2010 @ 3:40pm

John Paul II also appointed Cardinal Bernard Law as ArchPriest of Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, after Law resigned as Archbishop of Boston in the wake of the sexual abuse scandal. Documents showed that Law had a active role in covering sexual abuse by priests.

by: Ivriniel

04-09-2010 @ 3:40pm

John Paul II also appointed Cardinal Bernard Law as ArchPriest of Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, after Law resigned as Archbishop of Boston in the wake of the sexual abuse scandal. Documents showed that Law had a active role in covering sexual abuse by priests.

by: outragex

04-09-2010 @ 7:29pm

For a great discussion of the return to authoritarian church government and conservative theology after Vatican II, read "Practicing Catholic" by Carroll. It really helped me as a Protestant who appreciates the Catholic Church to understand the struggle between modernism and reactionism in that great church.

IMO-There is really no way to justify the Catholic church's history with child abuse. The church failed to protect the vulnerable in its care in many instances, and then chose coverup versus justice and healing for the victims. Also, the coverups allowed many additional children to be victimized. None of this is consistent with Christianity whatsoever.

by: outragex

04-09-2010 @ 7:29pm

For a great discussion of the return to authoritarian church government and conservative theology after Vatican II, read "Practicing Catholic" by Carroll. It really helped me as a Protestant who appreciates the Catholic Church to understand the struggle between modernism and reactionism in that great church.

IMO-There is really no way to justify the Catholic church's history with child abuse. The church failed to protect the vulnerable in its care in many instances, and then chose coverup versus justice and healing for the victims. Also, the coverups allowed many additional children to be victimized. None of this is consistent with Christianity whatsoever.

by: Ivriniel

04-09-2010 @ 11:02pm

The issue here is that Conservative elements in the Catholic Church want things to be like they were prior to Vatican II with the hierarchy firmly in control, and an unquestioning laity.

The thing with this sort of environment is that makes it easier for coverups to occur.

by: Ivriniel

04-09-2010 @ 11:02pm

The issue here is that Conservative elements in the Catholic Church want things to be like they were prior to Vatican II with the hierarchy firmly in control, and an unquestioning laity.

The thing with this sort of environment is that makes it easier for coverups to occur.

by: 1jsm5

04-11-2010 @ 7:28pm

I feel the Catholic Church sealed its fate when it allied with the earthly powers of the Roman Empire and defined the bishop of Rome as "the vicar of Christ on earth." Since that time they have succumbed to the temptations of secular presence and been unable to carry out the Christian messages of simplicity and faithfulness. Can't serve God and Mammon.

by: 1jsm5

04-11-2010 @ 7:28pm

I feel the Catholic Church sealed its fate when it allied with the earthly powers of the Roman Empire and defined the bishop of Rome as "the vicar of Christ on earth." Since that time they have succumbed to the temptations of secular presence and been unable to carry out the Christian messages of simplicity and faithfulness. Can't serve God and Mammon.