A Woman’s Place Is in the Church

The cause of the Catholic clergy's sex-abuse scandal is no mystery: insular groups of men often do bad things. So why not break up the all-male club?


Studies show what we intuitively know: without checks and balances, insular groups of men do bad things. History professor Nicholas Syrett, author of The Company He Keeps: A History of White College Fraternities, says studies suggest that 70 to 90 percent of gang rapes on college campuses are committed by men in fraternities. Obviously, he adds, important differences exist between the Roman Catholic hierarchy and college frats—”fraternity men are encouraged to have sex with lots of women. Clearly priests are not.” But in both cases, “men are encouraged to believe that they are in positions of power for a reason…I do think if the hierarchy of the Catholic Church doesn’t discipline these people because they are concerned about reputation, they create a space where those are led to believe that whatever they do is OK.”

Newsweek, April 2, 2010
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/02/a-woman-s-place-is-i...

Original piece at The Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/02/a-woman-s-place-is-in-the-church.html

When you have that much ego on the line, and institutional inertia to boot, it is nearly impossible to admit error.

and how it corrupted the Church.

Lord Acton was a Catholic layman and theologian who strongly object to this doctrine with the words "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Bet you didn't know where this saying came from. It was from the battles over the Doctrine of Infallibility.

Gary Wills also said in this book that Church had to get over it's "pelvic issues."

So one day he wasn't infallible and the next day he was. Hmmmmm.

Do you oppose clarification?

But now that it's clarified anyway, her point remains quite valid, agreed?

I'm sure her point would have somehow been less valid had you not clarified that irrelevant matter.

I do understand that you consider irrelevant any fact that disputes your assertion that the RCC is no more than an association of pedophiles.

Actions speak a lot lot louder than a bunch of empty words

When I read where they strip all the leaders that knew of the abuse of their power and kick them out of the church then I will change my position

I found the statement self serving of the church
'Oh, thank you for pointing out our criminal activities so we could finally address them'

I find your inferences interesting.

that is criminal activity

So it backs up my point that the statement is self serving .........

When the pope and others come clean then I will start believing that they are sorry

I also find interesting that you posted this article in a safe haven and have very few responses and you do not post the article that you posted in response to me

Yes I posted the article there before you did here.

I didn't post the Reuters article because nobody there made an idiotic comment about the story. I had, however, previously posted the Reuters article there.

Since you frequently peruse that safe have group (which I also find interesting), I'm surprised you were unaware of it.

And what was idiotic about my comment??

Am I not allowed to peruse any group or forum on this website??

And you cn peruse anything you want, as can I.

I will return a little later because now I need to go see Michele Bachmann and listen to her

The answer is no.

So he is saying that the Church knew they were participating in criminal activities but because the media
would not let up the Church finally had to do something about it


and if this is wrong then you state what the Church is saying because it seems they say something different the next day

now only if the Catholic Church can come forward into the 21st

Thanks for doing that

action, by coming clean about the atrocities it covered up and dealing with all those involved.

But that is probably asking too much. I mean, no one would ever think that an institution based on the most honest, most loving person/god ever would be honest about such a thing.

I'm sure that, were jesus/god real, jesus/god would be very impressed with what this institution has done in his name, right?

How anthropomorphic.

I didn't give that idea any anthropomorphic qualities, that is your area of expertise.

I'll fix it for you.

"Going by what I thik is the Catholic idea of what god is, I would say yes."

Those statements should be understood before critiquing them.

Do you agree that there are no beliefs in science?

You know, the three in one; what the Catholic Church insists is the reality of the deity who became human by being born to a woman herself born by an immaculate conception. Of course God could not give birth because for some reason "He" has a gender unless he is the (genderless) Holy Ghost.

Rationality - lacking from Christianity since around the year 790 AUC

Although I do enjoy your attributing human traits to God.

Human traits to god? Aren't we made in his image?

get a clue. Or a better Google. You'll find your answer sooner if you filter out the cartoons.

Matthew 7:6

You should too.

Google Incarnation after you google anthroporphism.

Confusion - being sowed since precisesly August 17, 2006.

Incarnation of a deity as a human being is a specific form of the more general anthropomorphism of a deity. Human like is a super set of human.

The whole point is that Jesus was supposedly an interpretation of what is not human (God) into personal and human characteristics (Jesus). Interpretation does not only refer to language it can refer to many endeavors. Yes Jesus was also supposedly an incarnation but an incarnation could be anything of flesh from mollusk to mammal.

Do keep up, Bond.

In one, God comes down and becomes man.

In the other, various people look up and cast various attributes on God, depending on their own conception of what God might be like.

Simple and entirely different things.

Not man but flesh; check Zeus and Leda. When Zeus became golden rain and when El Adonai became fire was manifestation. The order is therefore that a god is made manifest by incarnating and taking the form of a man; literally anthropomorphisng or if you wish to phrase it another way the Christian God becomes an anthropomorphic shape.

Look at the roots of the word:
Anthrop - Man;
Morphos - Form.

Even Webster admits that about adjective anthropmorphic:

Incarnation - God became man (not some unspecified flesh).

The difference between the Incarnation and anthropomorphism is the difference betwen the actors. In the former, it is God acting. In the later it is man attempting to relate to an ineffable concept in terms he can understand. The Greek and Roman myths are but two examples.

You may not like the precision of language but it's important when trotting out tired old attacks.

You may find it convenient to use it as a shorthand indicator that you are talking about the specific incarnation of Jesus but that is just your habit and it is not a habit that I need to wear.

To put it another way, I was describing a process that is used by many gods and described in many religions. Where I named the deity I used a capital as is proper in English with proper names. It is only Christians who insist upon the magical use of capitals to describe what happened to their deity. Incarnate is not a title or part of the name of Jesus; this makes it unlike the term Christ which is a title meaning "anointed" (applying equally to Horus) and so should be capitalised in English. I am not a Christian and so do not need to capitalise in your manner.

The use of the capital has nothing to do with your religion, or lack thereof. It's a prope noun referring to something specific, not generic.

Athrop - man
Morphos - form

Athropomorphic - adjective
Anthropomorphism - noun

Your specific complaint that started this nonsense was that applying emotions to a god was anthropomorphic, I pointed out that Jesus was the anthropomorphism of Yahweh. I did not add that your faith insists that not only was Jesus an aspect of the triune but also fully human and therefore fully aware of human emotions and subject to them - because I thought you knew that.

From context I gather that the body of your text refers to "incarnate" but the casual reader would not be so aware. If incarnate was a title applied to the god/man Jesus then you might be correct but it is not. Similarly "The Incarnation" may be a unique event to Christians, but it is not to myself or others; remember I did not refer to a singular incarnation because incarnation is a popular tactic of deities, which is what I was making clear.

I owe no duty of respect to your deity because your deity does not exist. You may wish to continue with pointless formalisms and meaningless rituals but do not expect others to do the same. Ask yourself why you do certain things and why you need to write in a particular form. Why, for example, do you need to make the physical expression of subjugation by kneeling? Surely if you are truly Christian then you are entirely subject and your god is aware of it. On the other hand if you are just performing the act without being in subjection then why perform the act?

Lastly, on the use of capitals; please read "archie and mehetabel" and enjoy yourself.

I don't give a shit what you respect or disrespect but ignoring the plain meaning of words hardly encourages credence in whatever you say next.

What I have said already is plain enough and I have no need to repeat it.

BTW, the Greek word is anthropos.

I think it is pretty clear who is "denying the dictionary". In this case the noun is morphos and so keeps the suffix. The roots are given in the definition of anthropomorphize in Webster.

Next the noun is used in proper form. Quoting directly from Meriam Webster

Who knew?

We should do something about this.

and it is only in your particular sect that it is used as a proper noun

If you prefer the more formal definition then your preferred Merriam Webster has

Who split from whom in the Great Schism of 1054?

The schism was formalised in 1054 by the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by Catholic Legates (not the Pope) and the subsequent excommunication of only those Legates by the Patriarch. There had been earlier excommunications.

In actual fact the schism had begun much earlier, possibly as early as the 2nd Century. In later years there were dubious* claims of Papal preeminence and as well as the nominally earth shattering matters as the use of leavened or unleavened bread and the precise wording of the catechism, the last altered unilaterally by Rome. The only reason why this particular flounce by the Roman representatives stuck was the weakness of Constantinople following the death of Basil II.

===========================

* The "Donation of Constantine" was a forgery and a very poor one as were the Isidorean Decretials.

I would hope you realize that mutual anathemas were issued in 1054, an entirely unnecessary exercise had there been a prior schism.

Your claim of a schism from the second century ir rather bizarre considering the seven ecumenical councils occurred from the fourth through the eight centuries. Some schism.

As to your last paragraph, I will only say your bias is showing.

The dispute between the Patriarchates and Rome was centuries old. There were frequent declarations by one side or the other that their opponents were schismatic or heretical.

Essentially the Bishop of Rome claimed preeminence over all other churches. See below.

The Bishop of Rome amended the Catechism to include the Filoque a change to the catechism first outlined by Tertullian and hence before AD 220. At that time such a change was akin to the beliefs of the recently abjured sect if the Arians. The Filoque henceforward only appeared in the Latin versions of the Catechism.

The Bishop of Rome moved to have Easter so that it could precede of Passover, which is odd as the entry into Jerusalem coincided with the start of Passover and the Last Supper was a Passover meal. In the Eastern Churches Easter always follows Passover.

The Bishop of Rome insisted that only unleavened bread should be used for the sacrament. Not being interested in magic I have no idea why that causes dispute.

As to my last paragraph do you insist that the Donation of Constantine was not a forgery? Then argue with the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia;

Whast you have shown is that your antipathy against religion filters the historical record.

1) Shown by me and undisputed by yourself in post 114 http://www.democraticunderground.com/121868233#post114 . After this post you went on to make assertions about capitalisation

2) First paragraph post 114 and undisputed by you; I did commit one error, the roots are discussed in Anthropomorphic not Anthropomorphize http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic?show=0&t=1360790611

3) You merely asserted that a sect was different from a religion. I gave the correct definition of sect quoting Merriam Webster, as you seem to favour that, in post 120. You did not dispute this definition. http://www.democraticunderground.com/121868233#post120

4) Your lack of knowledge of your own sect's history was demonstrated by your previous post as:
a) you showed ignorance of the Filoque dispute (and it's early origins) which rendered the Roman Church heretical from the point of view of the Patriarchates and the Patriarchates heretical in Rome's view;
b) you remained ignorant of the changes to the calculation of Easter (and their early date) and how rendered the disputants schismatic from each other;
c) you showed total disregard for the insignificant matter of leavened/unleavened sacrament;
d) seem totally ignorant that the preeminence of Rome over the Patriarchates was claimed by Rome on the basis of the "Donation of Constantine" and the "False Decretials" both of which were forgeries;
e) you claimed I was showing bias by asserting (along with the Catholic Encyclopedia) that the 2 documents cited were dubious, argue with the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
f) You are ignorant of the anathematization of various Popes by the Patriarchate and Church councils as well as the excommunication of several Patriarchs especially in iconoclast periods.

5) On capitalisation, I pointed you in the direction of "archie and mehetabel" but you obviously did not get the reference. Please grow up and show some humour. I also pointed out that your specific niggle was actually pointless as I was referring to the class of events concerning deities not your special "Incarnation". Additionally you show a great deal of arrogance because, by your preference, devout Jews and Muslims would be asked to admit that an incarnation they deny was a real event.

I know that you will accuse me of arrogance in return but I must ask you is supplying chapter and verse and links supporting argument an example of arrogance?

Or would that word better describe someone whose only method of argument is blind and obedient assertion supported, in this instance, by one misapprehended citation?

He said that the media did the church a service by uncovering sex abuse. So what?

Why?

engaging in extreme criminal abuse for at least decades.

That's nice that this guy thanked the media. But who really cares? And who really believes that it signifies any change in the attitude of the organization?

I don't really see any significance in the statement.

Well, that must be how it seems to you. I care more for the impact of these statements than how it seems to you.

And do you think the bishops and church administration did not know about the abuse before the media brought it to light?

Every diocese now has a clear policy on reporting.

There is no question they were aware of it. I don't think that's even an issue. What has changed is how they react to it.

and yet the abuse, cover-ups, and non-reporting have continued. So what has changed, other than this guy saying thanks to the media?

The first is endemic throughout society. What is pertinent is the last two. Do you have anything on those in violation of the USCCB policy in the last ten years?

after a long fight to get the Los Angeles dioscese to release documents on priest sex abuse, they finally released 10,000 heavily redacted pages. (a) it took them till last week to make the information available, even though the policy to finally get honest about this stuff was enacted in 2002, and (b) The victims say the dioscese is STILL not releasing all the information and covering up for certain priests. This is in violation of a court order, not just the bishop's own policy.

That's probably the most recent example.

What would be decisive is an example of abuse first coming to a diocese's attention now. If a coverup ensued, you'd be right. But I expect, whether due to fear or conscience, it would be reported.

That's not a useful conversation, and it's not a game I want to play.

Bye.

Very young men who decide to to into the the priesthood may themselves be abused when they enter their seminary. The cover up is at every level and moving around offending priests just spread the problem and allowed it to flourish.

It is a nightmare of unspeakable proportions which, were this any other organization, would most likely lead to complete replacement of the hierarchy.

he would have to learn to cope with the "homosexual" environment in the seminaries.

I don't know any more than that about it. That's all I was told.

The abuses in the seminaries that I heard about were much more about power than sexuality. Young, relatively naive men were being subjected to some pretty horrid abuse with no recourse. As often happens, once they had power, they sometimes used it to abuse those weaker and more vulnerable than they.

The church's inability to address the bigger issues concerning sexuality within the priesthood led to more and more negligence and denial within the hierarchy.

They knew what was going on and chose not to address it. In the meantime, the problems just got worse and worse.

you report it to the police. Period. What exactly is "complex" about that?

...the church all the way to the top has a policy of covering this up and always has had that policy. Sex, by the way has nothing to do with it. Power does. It comes down to the church not wanting to make their priests appear to be normal human beings who should be treated as normal human beings by the secular world. Priests, seen as chaste and apart from the world, offer the image of men with special powers--able to turn wine into the blood of Jesus, a wafer into the body of Jesus, able to forgive people and let them get to heaven, or not and they'll go to hell. That's a lot of power. And the fear is people won't believe priests have that power if some are exposed as common criminals.

This, in the end is all about having power over the faithful. You can't have a priest tell someone that unless they do what the church wants they'll go to hell if that priest is shown to be a child molester. Besides, the priest reflects on the church. So long as his sins are hidden, so long as he seems "angelic" the church seems angelic too.

None of this should mystify you. Religion often relies on leaders who use mystical trappings to seem above and beyond, special and supernatural rather than normal. This gives them power over people and the wealth to put forth their agenda and gain more followers. No organized religion is going risk losing that. And any organized religion (or organization period) that admits to aiding and abetting child molesters risks losing an awful lot of power and credibility. It's really that simple.

the ordinary failings of humans. If not, then they are just ordinary humans, and ordinary humans have no power.

To deny that the two are not intertwined is to deny reality.

To deny that human institutions, regardless of ideology, go to great lengths to preserve themselves is to deny reality.

To deny reality in pursuit of an agenda is . . . . well, you go fill in the blank.

they get enough money they can cover up this shit. So they do because they don't want that money to stop and if you find out they are fucking your chiildren, you might not want to give them 10 percent of everything you make for it.

So they will do everything they can to keep it quiet.

but also the two are so intertwined that it is hard to separate them

The Vatican holds massive wealth, while a majority of its laity suffers in poverty.

however one can have power without wealth

Clergy abuse happens in non-Catholic churches too, but they can handle it locally without it going "upstairs" where they value damage control over the lives of children. For example, nearby here a Methodist youth pastor was abusing kids; the church council president called the police, and that was the end of the story.

This is just not possible in the same way within the RCC.