Church Secrets

April 7, 2010 9:34 AM

The Memphis Commercial-Appeal, as part of its investigation into John Doe vs. The Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis, et al, was able to get thousands of pages of court documents unsealed.

The documents show the diocese's practice of moving abusive priests from parish to parish.

posted by reenum (64 comments total)

I guess it's up to us to find the interesting/salacious/conspiratorial meat within 7.000 pages?
posted by spicynuts at 9:38 AM on April 7, 2010

As important as these may be, I don't think I can bear to read them.
posted by HumanComplex at 9:39 AM on April 7, 2010

I guess so, but that sounds like a lot of work.
posted by infinitywaltz at 9:39 AM on April 7, 2010

The documents show the diocese's practice of moving abusive priests from parish to parish.

Is this really a secret anymore? Seems more like SOP.
posted by never used baby shoes at 9:40 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

Here is the article for context
posted by spicynuts at 9:40 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

Some poor soul(s) had to go through these by hand, scratch out John Doe's real name, and write in John Doe? Good grief.
posted by juliplease at 9:42 AM on April 7, 2010

"Is this really a secret anymore? Seems more like SOP."

It would seem so. Except it was written after the procedure had been in place for some time. By the court. Makes all the difference and I'm glad to see this in writing and actionable.
posted by iamkimiam at 9:43 AM on April 7, 2010

Except it was written after the procedure had been in place for some time. By the court. Makes all the difference and I'm glad to see this in writing and actionable.

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out - that does make it much more meaningful.
posted by never used baby shoes at 9:51 AM on April 7, 2010

I lived in Memphis for several years, during part of the time that this stuff was taking place, and was a member of a parish during that time. Gave them money, sang in the choir. I didn't know any of the priests mentioned in the article, but I was acquainted with Bishop Steib.

As much as I hate to think of doing so, I may have to print out some of these documents just so that, the next time some god-botherer tries to recruit me, I can shove the pages in their face and say, "Let me show you what I paid for."
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:07 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

"Failed to protect" is some rather apologetic language. How about "actively enabled?" This isn't about some kind of Internal Affairs for priests, who did not leap forward quite quickly enough to stop the actions of the corrupt. We have evidence, scattered over the world, of an administrative machine built to hush the aggrieved and move the predatory to new hunting grounds. That sort of thing doesn't come cheap. I would be interested to see, in the unlikely case that the books were ever opened up, precisely how much out of every dollar in the plate passed around went to funding this sort of thing. It would be educational, at the very least.

I suppose I might entertain the thought that, after all, "the group isn't responsible for the misdeeds of a few members," even if I were willing to ignore the other members who cover it up. However, the group will cheerfully take credit for all of the Good Things (TM) it does, while the responsibility for the bad things goes on to Satan, or misguided souls, or whatever. I would just like people to stop kidding around that this is just about the company you keep. No. The Catholic Church receives funding from its members, tax exemptions from the government, and so forth. This isn't about your somewhat shady acquaintance you run into at the bar every so often. This is about the groups to which you give power and money ... and what they do with those things.

What I mean to say is some sliver of every well-meaning buck handed in goes to fund the misery of children and a smiling conspiracy under the cloak of grace. Now that we know what is done, is there any reason not to make sure that plate remains empty, week after week?
posted by adipocere at 10:09 AM on April 7, 2010 [5 favorites]

Don't worry folks, they're kicking out the gays and doing a much better job of covering things up, so this will surely never happen again.
posted by mullingitover at 10:11 AM on April 7, 2010

I guess it's up to us to find the interesting/salacious/conspiratorial meat within 7.000 pages?

No, it's right there in the post: the diocese's practice of moving abusive priests from parish to parish.
posted by DU at 10:13 AM on April 7, 2010

Um, something, something Church = BAD; something something YOUR FAULT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER....

Same old shit.
posted by RussHy at 10:18 AM on April 7, 2010

Yikes. Sorry; I didn't mean that to come off so snarky. Or directed at you, never used baby shoes.

I'm glad that things are being done to publicly acknowledge the horror of it all and try to right the so many wrongs.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:19 AM on April 7, 2010

RussHy: "Um, something, something Church = BAD; something something YOUR FAULT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER....

Same old shit."

Yes, that is the problem here. People getting UPSET by child abuse. This is totally the real problem that is uncovered by these documents. Bad attitudes towards religious people. Completely as important and relevant as systemic child abuse.
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 10:31 AM on April 7, 2010 [7 favorites]

something something YOUR FAULT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER....[and ignored it, or rationalized it away, and continued to fund them]

FTFY, Einstein. You're welcome.
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:34 AM on April 7, 2010

Reread this comment, nothing in there about the children abused, it's all about how bad you are if you tithe to the church.
posted by RussHy at 10:35 AM on April 7, 2010

Catholic Charities.
posted by oddman at 10:39 AM on April 7, 2010

iamkimiam - no worries. I think your point was a good one, and I didn't realize that this set of documents made things actionable.
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:47 AM on April 7, 2010

Same old shit.
What would be the appropriate response to seeing thousands of pages of text that describes the church, as an institution, actively enabling, and protecting CHILD RAPISTS?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 10:47 AM on April 7, 2010

Reread this comment, nothing in there about the children abused, it's all about how bad you are if you tithe to the church.

If you tithe to the RCC, you are funding the abuse of children by priests. It really is that simple.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:57 AM on April 7, 2010

Um, something, something Church = BAD; something something YOUR FAULT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER....

The ruling members of your organization/church are actively engaged in supporting child abusers. That is fact. It's not 'a bad apple', it's policy. And it's been going on for.. ever? Please explain at what point are the members responsible for the actions of the organization?


In my mind, those that tithe and support the church are supporting child abuse just as much as if they gave to NAMBLA. Moreso, as nambla doesn't have day-cares and childrens ministries.
posted by anti social order at 10:59 AM on April 7, 2010

The ruling members of your organization/church . . .

I'm not a Catholic, or even a believer, I'm just tired of the echo chamber in these threads where everybody competes to make the most eloquent attack on the church. Believers will never be swayed by your outrage. If you aren't in the RCC then you have no dog in the fight. Let them handle it themselves. The wronged parties are suing and winning and that will do far more than your moral outrage to stop the abuse.
posted by RussHy at 11:08 AM on April 7, 2010

If you aren't in the RCC then you have no dog in the fight.

So if it's not my child being fucked in the ass, I shouldn't care that it's happening?
posted by rocket88 at 11:14 AM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

If it's not your kid being abused, I don't care what you think.
posted by RussHy at 11:17 AM on April 7, 2010

Of course we have dogs in the fight. We have a poundful of puppies.

*holds up one puppy* This is the tax-exempt status for religious organizations. Costs us more than you might think in chow. Doesn't bark much, which is probably why he can nibble away and we don't really notice.

*waves a paw at RussHy* This gal here likes to scare kids. They can sometimes be afraid for their whole lives. Of course, someone else has to take care of the kids.

*holds up another puppy* This little yapper here is the one who is always chasing the cars around Planned Parenthood. His brother is off in Africa. He bites holes in condoms.

Oooh, here's a big one! Look at how he barks at people in government who don't vote how he likes. He's got a little basket of Eucharist around his neck like the joke about the St. Bernard with some liquor. Only he doesn't let anyone have the Eucharist if they vote certain ways.

And so on, and so forth. Like Primus said, "tooooo many puppies!"
posted by adipocere at 11:19 AM on April 7, 2010 [31 favorites]

If you aren't in the RCC then you have no dog in the fight. Let them handle it themselves.
posted by RussHy at 11:08 AM on April 7

Secular authorities should be informed when children are raped. Your hope that "what happens in the RCC should stay in the RCC" is pretty repugnant.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:21 AM on April 7, 2010

And your outrage is useless. Nothing will change because of your strongly worded comments on the blue. Save your energy for your own problems.
posted by RussHy at 11:23 AM on April 7, 2010

It's pretty odd that we can use our energy discussing the LHC or Obama or cats in scanners but it's this one little thing where you think everyone should just forget about it and go about our business and there's nothing to see here. Just a funny, weird coincidence.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:26 AM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

OK, you win, now you've convinced me. Fuck the Catholics, especially the ones who haven't been fucked enough already.
posted by RussHy at 11:28 AM on April 7, 2010

Adipocere. I favorite your reply a gazillion times. Hellagazillion even.
posted by the_royal_we at 11:29 AM on April 7, 2010

It's pretty odd that we can use our energy discussing the LHC or Obama or cats in scanners but it's this one little thing where you think everyone should just forget about it and go about our business and there's nothing to see here. Just a funny, weird coincidence.

Now, now, don't go suggesting that people who try to shut down discussion of the decades-long policy of protecting serial child molesters and silencing their victims might have some agenda to shut down the discussion! That would be ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTRY!!
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:30 AM on April 7, 2010 [3 favorites]

If it's not your kid being abused, I don't care what you think.

I'm happy to hear the RCC will discontinue opposing gay marriage and adoption for people who are not the pope.
posted by DU at 11:31 AM on April 7, 2010 [6 favorites]

"On the morning of January 14 in Seattle, Ken Roosa and a small group Alaska Natives stood on the sidewalk outside Seattle University to announce a new lawsuit against the Jesuits, claiming a widespread conspiracy to dump pedophile priests in isolated Native villages where they could abuse children off the radar.

"They did it because there was no money there, no power, no police," Roosa said to the assembled cameras and microphones. "It was a pedophile's paradise." He described a chain of poor Native villages where priests—many of them serial sex offenders—reigned supreme. "We are going to shine some light on a dark and dirty corner of the Jesuit order.""
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:31 AM on April 7, 2010 [6 favorites]

> Let them handle it themselves.

Yeah, you're right. The RCC has been doing a pretty good job of that thus far.

> The wronged parties are suing and winning and that will do far more than your moral outrage to stop the abuse.

This we do agree on. I hope the RCC gets sued down to a size where it loses its ability to even make attempts to influence events outside its fiefdom.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:32 AM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

If it's not your kid being abused, I don't care what you think.

Oh man, that is my favorite Jesus quote ever. Which part of the bible is it in again?
posted by the bricabrac man at 11:33 AM on April 7, 2010 [6 favorites]

Whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.

I wonder how Catholic apologists feel about priests raping Baby Jesus?
posted by DU at 11:41 AM on April 7, 2010

Surely this...
posted by jtron at 11:46 AM on April 7, 2010

"There is outrage in parts of Spanish society following declarations made over Christmas from the Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez.

His comments were that there are youngsters who want to be abused, and he compared that abuse to homosexuality, describing them both as prejudicial to society. He said that on occasions the abuse happened because the there are children who consent to it. ‘There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you’, he said."
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:48 AM on April 7, 2010

RussHy: I'm not a Catholic, or even a believer...

If it's not your kid being abused, I don't care what you think.

I love it when people say that they don't care about your opinion when you don't have a dog in the fight, right after admitting that they themselves don't have a dog in the fight.
posted by nushustu at 11:49 AM on April 7, 2010 [3 favorites]

I hope we get to hear more of RussHy's nuanced defence of the Catholic Church. I'm finding it so nuanced and persuasive, I can only hope it becomes the sole topic of discussion in this thread.

I haven't taken Communion in nearly 20 years, but if he tells someone to mind their own fucking business one more time, I think I'll be heading to the Cathedral with my chequebook in hand this Sunday.

I got my useless outrage in one hand and my rosary in the other, RussHy. C'mon lad, bring me home!
posted by gompa at 11:51 AM on April 7, 2010

Surely this...

Will be another in the series of a million cuts and bruises to the church's reputation that will be required before real change occurs?
posted by never used baby shoes at 11:52 AM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

And, oh, hey, NPR just did a story this morning on the religious affiliation of the Supreme Court justices. How big is that dog?
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:57 AM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

And your outrage is useless. Nothing will change because of your strongly worded comments on the blue. Save your energy for your own problems.

Why do you assume that The Blue is the only place that people, like myself, who are outraged by this, vent their rage? When things like this get enough of the general populace, or at least the demographic that government cares about, angry, talking, yelling in Letters to the Editor, public forums, lawsuits, etc etc, government eventually takes notice and gets involved. Or at least newspapers do, which eventually leads to government getting involved.. Strongly worded comments are the first step in the LOOOOOOONG, offensively slow process of government realizing that they can't ignore an injustice anymore. So, no, I don't think I'll save my energy for my own problems.
posted by spicynuts at 12:00 PM on April 7, 2010

YOUR FAULT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER

If you're still a member, given the almost complete lack of visible remorse or taking-of-responsibility at the top, I'd say that yes, it's now your fault. If you haven't cut ties with that organization, you're enabling child abuse.
posted by Malor at 12:12 PM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

I've seen a lot of unusual comments, but never one defending the church's ability to molest kids by saying we shouldn't care or get involved. I thought it was masterful trolling until I looked at your account.


Seriously, what the fuck is that? Bad day? Are you a NAMBLA member or the pope?
posted by anti social order at 12:15 PM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

If you're still a member, given the almost complete lack of visible remorse or taking-of-responsibility at the top, I'd say that yes, it's now your fault. If you haven't cut ties with that organization, you're enabling child abuse.

look man just because i give money to people who use it to shut up victims of child molestation doesn't mean
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:24 PM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

I guess it's up to us to find the interesting/salacious/conspiratorial meat within 7.000 pages?

I guess so, but that sounds like a lot of work.

I'm not sure why reading a couple of depositions is so much harder than rehashing the same argument over and over again, but I took one for the team and read the depositions of John R Doe's mother and sister. Most of it is boring deposition stuff, but a few parts stood out:

(Some background: the parents do not speak English, and Father Durran was apparently the only priest at their church who was fluent in Spanish.)

From the mother's deposition:

Q: Just so you will know, we all agree that what Father Durran did was very bad. There is, of course, no disagreement about that.
A. I am sure that if I can find him, I will kill him.

From his sister's deposition:

Q. But do you ever remember him saying I want to die or anything like that?
A. No. But like sometimes he say like if he can be in military here he can go to Iraq and they can kill him and it will resolve all the problems. Something like that conversations. Like if he die everything that would be resolved. Not that he can kill himself but [he] in like in a war if they can kill him.

Q. Why did you call Father Mickey?
A. I was telling that I was trying to find help for my brother because I think he was not good but he say he cannot do nothing, that is the Order or the Diocese problem, not his problem.
Q. I'm not sure I understood you. He said it was something that the Southern Dominican Province needed to deal with?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. Did he explain to you why he felt that way?
A. No. He was not – he don't talk too much. He was not, I don't know, friendly. I think he don't like to talking about that.

The sister's deposition ends with this about her brother:

Q. You worry about him?
A. I worry about him, yes.

The abused, their families, and their individual stories deserve to be heard. If you're going to have an argument about their lives, first stop and take a moment to listen to them.
posted by stefanie at 12:49 PM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

I really don't want to pile on RussHy, but a couple of things:

I'm just tired of the echo chamber in these threads where everybody competes to make the most eloquent attack on the church.

Respectfully, you clicked on a link to a thread about the unsealing of thousands of pages of evidence in an ongoing investigation about the Church protecting child rapists. What did you really expect to see here, a lengthy discussion on the font and kerning used through the documents?

Let them handle it themselves.

Their way of handling it is what's got everyone so angry.
posted by quin at 12:50 PM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

"Only by examining carefully the many elements that gave rise to the present crisis can a clear-sighted diagnosis of its causes be undertaken and effective remedies be found. Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person. Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing."

- Benedict XVI - Letter to the Catholics of Ireland
posted by ServSci at 12:53 PM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

YOUR FAULT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER

If you're still a member, given the almost complete lack of visible remorse or taking-of-responsibility at the top, I'd say that yes, it's now your fault. If you haven't cut ties with that organization, you're enabling child abuse.

So let's see where else we can apply this reasoning.

Let's start with the armed forces and DADT?
If you're still a soldier, serviceman, marine, sailor, etc. given the almost complete lack of visible remorse or taking-of-responsibility at the top (of the pentagon, traditionally), I'd say that yes, it's now your fault. If you haven't cut ties with that organization, you're enabling bigotry.

How's about the US and Pre-Emptive, unjust wars?
If you're still a citizen living in the USA, given the almost complete lack of visible remorse or taking-of-responsibility at the top, I'd say that yes, it's now your fault. If you haven't cut ties with that organization, you're enabling wholesale slaughter of innocents.

Muslims and antisemitism?
If you're still a member, given the almost complete lack of visible remorse or taking-of-responsibility at the top, I'd say that yes, it's now your fault. If you haven't cut ties with that organization, you're enabling religious intolerance.

Omnivores and industrial ranching?
If you still eat meat, given the almost complete lack of visible remorse or taking-of-responsibility at the top, I'd say that yes, it's now your fault. If you haven't cut ties with that practice, you're enabling animal abuse on an utterly inhumane scale.

I could continue but frankly it's tedious. Every single person on this planet is almost certainly a member of some group that is responsible for atrocities.

If you paint with a broad brush, you're going to get paint on yourself.
posted by oddman at 1:09 PM on April 7, 2010

yes let's compare groups that it takes effort to leave to a group that takes no effort at all to leave, very reasonable

then let's pretend that islam is a highly-structured religion like catholicism because we're utterly ignorant and proud of that
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:12 PM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

You think it takes no effort to abandon what is one of the most important elements of your identity, what is often the most important element? Really? Are you that naive?

There are hierarchical sects of Islam, a general comment, see also this. Of course, you are right to say that in Islam, worldwide, there is no strict hierarchy, the same is true in Christianity. But I don't want to get sidetracked about this example, I'll concede that this was a bad example. Good and done.

The point, of course, is that there are plenty of organizations and cultures that do bad things and which people participate in and support anyway. Roman Catholicism, I see no need to tar the other members of the Communion, is not unique in this. Glass houses and all that.
posted by oddman at 1:28 PM on April 7, 2010

Yeah, oddman, you're doing some lousy broad-brush painting yourself there. I was born in the US, I'm automatically an American citizen. For me to stop being an American citizen because I'm unhappy with US policies I'd have to physically move thousands of miles and apply for visas and citizenship and probably have to learn a new language and find a new job and a house and make new friends and find a new grocery store and learn a new public transportation system and learn a new city and new laws and and and and.

If I want to stop being a member of a church because I'm unhappy with that church's policies, I just have to stop going to that church.

Likewise, your argument against omnivores is tougher, but I would posit that the behavior of industrial ranchers is not as bad as the Catholic Church, because the ranchers abuse animals in order to sell lots of cheap meat. That's their final goal. They want to make as much money as they can and they do some bad things specifically because it helps them make money. One can argue about what the goal of the Catholic Church is, but none of those goals require the abuse of children.
posted by nushustu at 1:31 PM on April 7, 2010

"If I want to stop being a member of a church because I'm unhappy with that church's policies, I just have to stop going to that church."

You honestly believe that? Really? If so, you have no understanding of religious life or the psychology of the faithful.

Again, let me be explicit for those of you missing the point, certainly my analogies aren't perfect. Analogies are like that, imperfect. They are merely meant to be illustrative. Feel free to consider the actual claim instead of the exactness of the analogies. Likewise I'll resist critiquing the examples that you all put forward, because, you know finding perfect analogies and perfect counter examples isn't exactly the point.
posted by oddman at 1:47 PM on April 7, 2010

Oddman,

Assuming you are a catholic, I have some genuine questions. At what point would you leave the church? Let's pretend this just gets swept under the rug as it did 20 years ago and resurfaces in another 20 years. Would you consider leaving then?

Can the hierarchy do anything that would result in your leaving the church? As far as I can tell, the everyday catholic is practically powerless to make changes.

Would you be able to be a member of the church and not make donations? And do you think this could be a way to show your displeasure with the current state of affairs and remain a catholic in good standing?
posted by batou_ at 2:16 PM on April 7, 2010

So... I guess I am missing your point then. And your explicit repeat of that point.

Also, I'm not going to claim I have an understanding of "religious life" outside of my own. I tend to think that it might just be different for different people. But I grok what you're saying, I think. If I understand you correctly, you think it is as difficult (more difficult maybe) to leave your faith than to leave a country.

I can see that argument. I really can. But I also think that, if you are truly faithful that you have to know that the Church Militant is at the end of the day an organization run by imperfect humans. The Church has set up an organization on this world that tries its best to mirror God's kingdom, but will never be perfect.

Faith can help you to pray for as little imperfection as possible, and for strength when those imperfections come to the forefront of your consciousness and the consciousness of your church.

But when those imperfections become so egregious that not only the leaders of individual parishes are shown to do terrible things, but that leaders of the entire body are guilty of those same sins - and worse, of the refusal to admit to and seek forgiveness of those sins, and even to try to hide those sins, repeatedly, over decades - then I hope it is then that one's faith is strong enough to consider that maybe you don't need a human organization in order to love and worship God. That while you absolutely can use the thousands of years of good work and thought that went into the ideas of the Church, but not buy into an organization that for those same thousands of years have explicitly done bad things as well.

The Church itself changed considerably it's earth-bound understanding of worship via Vatican II. It was able to do this without changing its basic tenets one whit. If the Church refuses to fix the problems of bad priests and the protecting of same, why shouldn't individuals be able to change how they worship individually?
posted by nushustu at 2:19 PM on April 7, 2010

That was my nice retort. My mean one would go something like this:

Over and over again, I've read stories and seen interviews where members of a parish continued to support priests accused of these behaviors. It wasn't just that they wanted to do the right thing and be forgiving: they wanted to keep those priests in their church, despite what those priests had done.

You mentioned the "psychology of the faithful." I call it "psychology of a brainwashed cult member."
posted by nushustu at 2:24 PM on April 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

Just in case anyone takes seriously the "brainwashed cult member" thing anymore, they might want to read something simple like this article from religioustolerance.org that has a good round up of sources on debunking this type of polemic.
posted by ServSci at 2:41 PM on April 7, 2010

Good lord, I've been following these stories for what seems like a decade, but the one Pope Guilty links to is just beyond sickening.
posted by infinitywaltz at 3:23 PM on April 7, 2010

Oh, I didn't mean you shouldn't use it polemically, just that the lack of responsibility that goes along with the "brainwashing" rhetoric is usually used to justify external intervention or persecution, because the adherents "can't help themselves" which doesn't quite fit with the "love it or leave it" dichotomy in the rest of the screed.
posted by ServSci at 3:54 PM on April 7, 2010

Aside from all that, the thing that worries me is the scope of the thing, obviously global at this point, right?

I already thought the priesthood was practically designed to draw the power-hungry and mal-adapted as an institution (along with the spiritual people who feel a real vocation, of course). Now given some of the things we believe about child abuse and sexual abuse, what are the odds that these abusive priests were themselves abused as altar boys or in seminary? Abused -> Abuser. Then think about the abusers or those abusers. Imagine the impact of that not only on how far it might reach today, but going backward in time.

I used to dismiss the "global pedophile ring" talk as too "tin-foil hat"-y for my taste, but watching this issue erupt over and over and thinking about the numbers of people one pedophile might affect and how each of those might go on to become an abuser themselves... I dunno... I get a creepy feeling about it.
posted by ServSci at 4:08 PM on April 7, 2010

You think it takes no effort to abandon what is one of the most important elements of your identity, what is often the most important element? Really? Are you that naive?

Your refusal to do so means that you are actively contributing to child molestation. That money you're tithing is being used to pay salaries of predators.

Comparing that with organizations that you simply have no choice about belonging to, like governments, is misdirection and obfuscation.

YOU are responsible for this. You personally. Your money and your attitude of 'oh it would be so wrenching to leave' are both directly supporting it. You'd rather be comfortable and maintain your social networks, so you'll continue to pay the salaries of child abusers.

Now, maybe you don't want to leave because you're afraid you'll go to Hell. The Catholic Church has many terrible threats about what awaits you, should you fail to show up and tithe regularly. But if there is a Hell, I suspect knowingly staying in a pedophilic organization is one of the fastest ways to get there. That's no path to salvation, whatever they might promise.
posted by Malor at 5:20 PM on April 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

Then think about the abusers or those abusers. Imagine the impact of that not only on how far it might reach today, but going backward in time.

Given that it took the secularisation of society, the weakening of the Church, and the rise of the internet (and its ability to connect strangers with shared concerns) for this to start coming out, and for the age-old background murmur of ribald jokes about pederastic priests to turn into mass outrage, to think that it has only been going on for decades, rather than centuries, beggars belief. To think about how powerless the victims of predatory priests' attentions must have been in, say, the 19th century, when not only was there not even the possibility of getting the priests moved on to a different parish but they were undoubtedly convinced that they had sinned and would burn in Hell for it is truly horrifying.
posted by acb at 5:21 PM on April 7, 2010 [4 favorites]