This debacle with the RC Church and the current Pope makes me physically ill. How does a church allow such awful crimes to continue? NT

[Kim]

nt

[Hawthorne]

I completely agree. I watched a documentary about institutional abuse last fall & spent the day crying. I was emotionally distraught for several days.

[Tracy]

I really can't get my mind around it :-( (nt)

[kathy caribe]

Having already been through this debacle with our family and close friends of our family, I can assure you that the RC church is very quick to turn a blind eye and blame the children. They disgust me even more than the evangelists. I am not at all surprised at this current news. Not surprised in the least. And maybe it is just because we have been "touched" but I cannot believe that people continue to support their churches, parishes, etc. It simply disgusts me that people know this abuse is condoned and supported and they continue to support the RC church (with patronage, schools, etc.).

[Kim]

I completely agree. I was just saying to Nick that the RC Church has thousands of years of awfulness to account for, this is just one more you know? NT

[serialmom]

There's a map online somewhere, showing abuse clusters, if you will. There is no other religious org I know of that has this much abuse, this widespread, over so many generations. If this church is to continue, Ratzinger should step down. Instead, he is behind the Catholics Come Home campaign. The arrogance is astounding.

[mudcreekmama]

I know and there seems to be no end to the betrayals. Here in Canada the Bishop from Antigonish here in Nova Scotia was heralded as a champion for abuse survivors because when there was a sexual abuse civil case involving the church he made public seemingly heartfelt apologies for what had happened in Antigonish. In September he was arrested for having masses of child porn on his laptop, and since then several of HIS alleged victims have come forth.

[azul99]

I think the Church does not think in terms of crime and punishment. It thinks in terms of sin and forgiveness, and redemption. (For the record, I am not justifying or defending; I am explaining what I think the Church's POV and M.O. are.)

Andrew Sullivan wrote a great piece on his blog on this:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/sin-or-crime.html

I also think the Church changes very, very slowly, if at all, and that somewhere in his mind, the Pope thinks that it is still the 14th century; that the Church and government are still rolled into one dictatorial-type institution; that it can do no wrong; and that no one is entitled to question its actions or those of its priests.

I think that the Pope and his people (literally) can't wrap their minds around the notion that they are accountable and in the wrong.

ETA, I left the RCC about eight years ago, for many reasons, including my own inability to live with my "sinner" status there (in its eyes, DH and I are not married and therefore I should not have been taking communion), and in part because of the sex abuse scandals - I knew I could not trust my children to the priests of our parish. I feel so, so glad that we are no longer there. It is so freeing.

My (very devout/religious) Catholic sister missed Easter Mass this year for the first time in her life, because she is so disgusted by it all.

[Anne]

Andrew Sullivan wrote a great piece on his blog on this:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/sin-or-crime.html



That was a great and disturbing article. Thanks for posting the link.

[Kim]

great article, thank you. I think the 'protect the church' is one of the main thoughts behind this. NT

[azul99]

great article, thank you. I think the 'protect the church' is one of the main thoughts behind this. NT

I agree. It's all about the paramount importance of the Church. Everything else is a very distant second.

[azul99]

Another good (IMO) Andrew Sullivan piece on the latest findings re: what the Pope knew.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-third-strike.html

I don't even know what to say. There are no words that suffice to describe how horrific this is.

[Gargoyle]

Never mind.

[Tracy]

It simply disgusts me that people know this abuse is condoned and supported and they continue to support the RC church (with patronage, schools, etc.).

It confuses me, I'd say, that people would continue to support that church. I guess that I'd rather leave and attend another church than send one red cent to a church that condoned and hid such rampant child abuse. The ONLY way to show them that it's not acceptable is to strip them of their immense wealth which apparently also gives them immense power and enables them and fuels them to ignore and hide abuse.

[Storymama]

It confuses me, I'd say, that people would continue to support that church. I guess that I'd rather leave and attend another church than send one red cent to a church that condoned and hid such rampant child abuse. The ONLY way to show them that it's not acceptable is to strip them of their immense wealth which apparently also gives them immense power and enables them and fuels them to ignore and hide abuse.
Among Catholics I have known, I think they do not identify attending church with supporting that church, in the same way that non-affiliated protestants do. Many Catholics (among the very scientific sampling I have taken LOL!) feel ethnically Catholic (for lack of a better way to put it) - something they are born-as. It's not something to leave in the same sense that many non-affiliated protestants church shop until they find the right fit; it seems a more external process for those folks, in that sense. For many Catholics, it would be like trying to leave being black, or being a woman - you just ARE Catholic. It seems all the more tragic to me (on their behalf) because it's not just a matter of voting against a travesty with their feet. They feel related to the church (and its crimes) no matter their attendance. They can't become unCatholic.

[Amanda_Reyasmom]

Among Catholics I have known, I think they do not identify attending church with supporting that church, in the same way that non-affiliated protestants do. Many Catholics (among the very scientific sampling I have taken LOL!) feel ethnically Catholic (for lack of a better way to put it) - something they are born-as. It's not something to leave in the same sense that many non-affiliated protestants church shop until they find the right fit; it seems a more external process for those folks, in that sense. For many Catholics, it would be like trying to leave being black, or being a woman - you just ARE Catholic. It seems all the more tragic to me (on their behalf) because it's not just a matter of voting against a travesty with their feet. They feel related to the church (and its crimes) no matter their attendance. They can't become unCatholic.
Yes this! I don't think it matters how catholic you are.. if it's in you... it's in you. It's so weird.. I who grew up with zero religion at all, have *always* felt a pull to the church. Now, politically, I disagree more often than I don't, so I've never seriously considered even learning more and considering joining. At the same time, I have seen that if you're born and raised that the sacraments are vital to you're eternal SOUL.. Well, I understand wanting to get a few of those in before you die. :dunno:

[shannon]

Yep. This is pretty much it. For many Catholics (not all, but a lot), the Catholic identity is not just faith-based, but a culture unto itself. The fact that Protestantism is BASED on a recognition that the people have the right to be critical of their "faith providers," so to speak makes it so much easier for non-Catholic, non-Evangelical Christians to find comfort and fit in new spiritual homes.

That reminds me: I really need to get on top of having my name expunged from the list of Catholics...

[libbylibbylibby]

It confuses me, I'd say, that people would continue to support that church. I guess that I'd rather leave and attend another church than send one red cent to a church that condoned and hid such rampant child abuse. The ONLY way to show them that it's not acceptable is to strip them of their immense wealth which apparently also gives them immense power and enables them and fuels them to ignore and hide abuse.

I feel the same way about being Roman Catholic as I do about being an American. Just as I would not give up my American citizenship because I have disagreed vehemently with what the government in power is or was doing, I am unwilling to abandon the Roman Catholic church.
I believe strongly, very strongly, in the theology of the Roman Catholic church. I have attended other churches, and I keep returning to the Roman Catholic church, because, in the end, I agree in the theology.
That being said, I feel the abuse that has happened within the Roman Catholic church over years and years and centuries, is appalling. Not merely single instances of a priest in a church abusing those children in his care, but the whole issue around the Christian Brothers in Ireland... it is awful. And those people who are stepping forth to say something must be done, not merely going forward, but in terms of reparations to those who have been so horribly harmed, including families of the abused, they are RIGHT. At this point, I am unsure as to whether the Church, in its current form and structure, is able to heal and rebuild in the way that Christ intended for it. I struggle with this daily, but as Amanda pointed out below, I still have the belief in the sacraments, and in the value of attending Mass, and in the worth of contributing to my local parish, and to organizations like Catholic Relief Services.
I realize that my point of view is unlikely to be shared by many people here, and perhaps people will be disgusted at my willing to remain an active part of what they consider to be a corrupt organization. I am unable to discuss this more, here, today, and probably through this week, because I am swamped with schoolwork, but if anyone here does want to talk further, I am willing to (but email me, and I'll check in!)
Also, I do not want my words to be at all misunderstood as supporting the church hierarchy that supported the cover up of such heinous crimes. I don't. And I know that for those who are suffering the wounds of past abuse, even to HEAR of such things going on, it can be like having to relive your own abuse.
Well, that's all I have to contribute.
Thank you also, azul, for sharing the links to salon.com.

[azul99]

Among Catholics I have known, I think they do not identify attending church with supporting that church, in the same way that non-affiliated protestants do. Many Catholics (among the very scientific sampling I have taken LOL!) feel ethnically Catholic (for lack of a better way to put it) - something they are born-as. It's not something to leave in the same sense that many non-affiliated protestants church shop until they find the right fit; it seems a more external process for those folks, in that sense. For many Catholics, it would be like trying to leave being black, or being a woman - you just ARE Catholic. It seems all the more tragic to me (on their behalf) because it's not just a matter of voting against a travesty with their feet. They feel related to the church (and its crimes) no matter their attendance. They can't become unCatholic.

Yes, this is right. I worship in a Lutheran church but will always be Catholic. It is not possible, for me, to just leave that identity (and it is an identity) behind.

I also think that practicing Catholics feel grief and shame and horror at the wrongs of these people, but that the Church itself - Christ's Church here on earth - remains important (indeed, sacred) to them. The Pope and these priests are not the Church itself, if that makes any sense.

[A_Marie]

I feel the same way about being Roman Catholic as I do about being an American. Just as I would not give up my American citizenship because I have disagreed vehemently with what the government in power is or was doing, I am unwilling to abandon the Roman Catholic church.
I believe strongly, very strongly, in the theology of the Roman Catholic church. I have attended other churches, and I keep returning to the Roman Catholic church, because, in the end, I agree in the theology.
That being said, I feel the abuse that has happened within the Roman Catholic church over years and years and centuries, is appalling. Not merely single instances of a priest in a church abusing those children in his care, but the whole issue around the Christian Brothers in Ireland... it is awful. And those people who are stepping forth to say something must be done, not merely going forward, but in terms of reparations to those who have been so horribly harmed, including families of the abused, they are RIGHT. At this point, I am unsure as to whether the Church, in its current form and structure, is able to heal and rebuild in the way that Christ intended for it. I struggle with this daily, but as Amanda pointed out below, I still have the belief in the sacraments, and in the value of attending Mass, and in the worth of contributing to my local parish, and to organizations like Catholic Relief Services.
I realize that my point of view is unlikely to be shared by many people here, and perhaps people will be disgusted at my willing to remain an active part of what they consider to be a corrupt organization. I am unable to discuss this more, here, today, and probably through this week, because I am swamped with schoolwork, but if anyone here does want to talk further, I am willing to (but email me, and I'll check in!)
Also, I do not want my words to be at all misunderstood as supporting the church hierarchy that supported the cover up of such heinous crimes. I don't. And I know that for those who are suffering the wounds of past abuse, even to HEAR of such things going on, it can be like having to relive your own abuse.
Well, that's all I have to contribute.
Thank you also, azul, for sharing the links to salon.com.

Much of this is me.

[Tracy]

And I guess that's why I can't wrap my mind around it. I'm a Christian. I'm not going to become unChristian either, but you could be damn sure that I wouldn't attend a church that systematically defends priests over children and by doing so at the highest levels, continues the cycle of abuse and supports that cycle with it's time and money. To me, being Catholic isn't the issue. I understand the idea that Catholicism for many is who they are. It's a culture as much as a religion. It's a large part of their identity. As is my own Christianity. But, Filling the pews or donating money to the Catholic church? I could not do that, in good conscience. I can be Christian within the walls of my own home. In my mind, I don't have to attend or support a Church body to do so.



Among Catholics I have known, I think they do not identify attending church with supporting that church, in the same way that non-affiliated protestants do. Many Catholics (among the very scientific sampling I have taken LOL!) feel ethnically Catholic (for lack of a better way to put it) - something they are born-as. It's not something to leave in the same sense that many non-affiliated protestants church shop until they find the right fit; it seems a more external process for those folks, in that sense. For many Catholics, it would be like trying to leave being black, or being a woman - you just ARE Catholic. It seems all the more tragic to me (on their behalf) because it's not just a matter of voting against a travesty with their feet. They feel related to the church (and its crimes) no matter their attendance. They can't become unCatholic.

[Kim]

Yes, this I understand. My horror is not that parishioners remain with the church, but that Church leaders allow such vile acts to continue. I understand how a person would continue to love their religion, their theology, the sacraments and the culture of Catholicism. I do not understand how the leaders of the Church think their brethren so weak as to be unable to handle strong action on behalf of children. If anything, their inability to reparate here, to speak strongly about the abuse and denounce priests who commit crimes against children, is more damaging to the church and yet the Vatican seems unable to wrap their collective minds around this.

[serialmom]

Never mind.

It should be everyone's church. The hierarchy doesn't own heaven and earth. I couldn't change anything. What I saw sent me into a crisis of faith.

The priests and nuns I counted on, who were better than me and yet equal to me, were lying to me and to everyone else. A friend of my brother's committed suicide within a year of coming forward. He was one of several boys who was molested in our diocese by the same priest, who had been rehabbed in New Mexico, then moved around, from parish to parish, continuing to do the same thing all over again.

Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. That's what the Church did. They called our friend a liar and destroyed him.

Hearing about the first isolated cases was bad enough, but then it became clear that it had been going on for years. I asked for answers and was given nothing. Just keep doing what you're doing. We're not supposed to question the hierarchy.

I think the Church needs people like you to bring it back around, and one day, I might join you, except I'm at a point where I can't reconcile what is now almost pagan belief. Mary is not just the mother of Christ. She's Mare, the Ocean. She is more than elemental. More than Church fathers define her to be.

What you said is important. I'm sorry you deleted, but I understand if you're feeling hurt.

ETA for clarity on our Mother.

[serialmom]

The corruption and abuse that he has allowed, that the hierarchy has allowed, has wounded everyone. I can't even acknowledge him as Pope. Yes, I know, the papacy has it's history of corruption. Life on Earth being imperfect and all, but I think the future of the Church is resting on what happens next.

[Ali]

Reposted from my facebook . . . . .

Second to last paragraph about sums it all up for me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125493179&sc=fb&cc=fp

[saffron]

The corruption and abuse that he has allowed, that the hierarchy has allowed, has wounded everyone. I can't even acknowledge him as Pope. Yes, I know, the papacy has it's history of corruption. Life on Earth being imperfect and all, but I think the future of the Church is resting on what happens next.

Do popes ever step down? Is that within the realm of the possible?

[saffron]

May I ask you (and any other Catholics) a question? Do you feel that the news coverage about this issue has been unfair somehow? (The reason I'm asking this here is that the article you linked to mentioned the "painful and incomplete news stories.")

An acquaintance of mine who is Catholic had the response of "the poor pope" when asked about the current discussion about the church and child abuse. I have not been following this story closely (mainly just reading headlines), but I don't understand this view. Is there a sense among Catholics that this is an unfair public discussion somehow? Or is there just a desire to protect what you value in the church while being saddened by the institutional perpetuation of child abuse? I hope this is not inflammatory. I am just hoping to understand.

[serialmom]

Do popes ever step down? Is that within the realm of the possible?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/weekinreview/11wakin.html

This gives a good summary of why he won't. Ratzinger doesn't think he did anything wrong, and given the context of other bishops and their behavior being equal, he'll stay Pope. It might take another generation, or another Pope, to begin to change the culture of the Church. The RC is like any church that has a hierarchy led by a prophet or appointed representative of G-d. They're in fact human, but won't give it up that easily. To admit error is to admit human failure. Sin is human failure, or a learning curve. Priests are allowed to "learn" from their sin.

[azul99]

Reposted from my facebook . . . . .

Second to last paragraph about sums it all up for me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125493179&sc=fb&cc=fp

A couple of questions:

How are the news stories incomplete? The NYTimes has brought to light documents, signed by the Pope, which prove beyond a doubt that he knew for sure what was happening on his watch and sanctioned it continuing. Is there some aspect of this news story that is incomplete?

And re: this paragraph:
But the painful and incomplete news stories that have dominated this Holy Week helpfully illustrate how and why I am able to continue on in faith. Particularly during the Easter Triduum, we are thrust deeply into the crucifixion narrative of the Gospels. There, on the wood of the cross, we encounter Jesus, son of Mary, who knew shame, betrayal, abandonment, scorn, jeering, ridicule, unimaginable pain and sorrow, and submitted to them, in order to draw us into a consoling embrace that says, "I know what you are feeling; I know what you are thinking. You tortured ones, you shamed ones, you innocent ones, you slandered ones; I am the One who knows, and we are actually all in this together, and quite outside of time."

Does this paragraph intend to compare the Pope with Jesus vis-a-vis sufferings? (Seriously?) Because "shame, betrayal, abandonment, unimaginable pain and sorrow" - yes, for sure, there has been suffering beyond belief here, but on the part of the victims of these heinous crimes, - not the Pope. The Pope is emphatically not the victim here.

[libbylibbylibby]

A couple of questions:

How are the news stories incomplete? The NYTimes has brought to light documents, signed by the Pope, which prove beyond a doubt that he knew for sure what was happening on his watch and sanctioned it continuing. Is there some aspect of this news story that is incomplete?

And re: this paragraph:
But the painful and incomplete news stories that have dominated this Holy Week helpfully illustrate how and why I am able to continue on in faith. Particularly during the Easter Triduum, we are thrust deeply into the crucifixion narrative of the Gospels. There, on the wood of the cross, we encounter Jesus, son of Mary, who knew shame, betrayal, abandonment, scorn, jeering, ridicule, unimaginable pain and sorrow, and submitted to them, in order to draw us into a consoling embrace that says, "I know what you are feeling; I know what you are thinking. You tortured ones, you shamed ones, you innocent ones, you slandered ones; I am the One who knows, and we are actually all in this together, and quite outside of time."

Does this paragraph intend to compare the Pope with Jesus vis-a-vis sufferings? (Seriously?) Because "shame, betrayal, abandonment, unimaginable pain and sorrow" - yes, for sure, there has been suffering beyond belief here, but on the part of the victims of these heinous crimes, - not the Pope. The Pope is emphatically not the victim here.

I think, for some of us who continue in the Catholic church, it is the discussion among some people that equates priesthood with pederasty. I do not think that the New York Times did that, although I disagree with the opinion piece that they had today that compared the role of women in the church to women in Afghanistan.

Additionally, this opinion piece from NPR brings to light, to me, a sense of Christ being someone's child. That He understands, and continues to understand, the suffering of those who have been harmed by this scandal. While there are people whose lives have been scarred and destroyed beyond my understanding, as a Catholic, I am called to empathize with them through the spirit of the suffering Christ. And I think the author's intent was to note that there are many priests and religious who are NOT harming children or the elderly, or those who are in positions of "weakness" relative to them. That was what it seemed to me, but only after reading her blog.

Also, Tracy, I wanted to respond to your comment that you could be a Christian at home. While that is true for many Protestants, in the Roman Catholic church, one cannot be a Catholic at home. I attend Mass, receive the Host, every week because that is the law of my Church. I think a lot of people don't know this about Catholicism.

[saffron]

I disagree with the opinion piece that they had today that compared the role of women in the church to women in Afghanistan.


No one should take Maureen Dowd seriously. Her op-eds are always over-the-top and ridiculous, IMO.

I get that you can't be a Catholic at home. Is there any way to communicate your dissent/discomfort through the church heirarchy? Or are you entirely cut off from expressing your opinions to leadership?

[azul99]

I think, for some of us who continue in the Catholic church, it is the discussion among some people that equates priesthood with pederasty. .

Can you point me to where in the media this is being done? In other words, which (specific) news stories are incomplete?

[azul99]

I disagree with the opinion piece that they had today that compared the role of women in the church to women in Afghanistan.

I read that piece and thought it was spot-on. While it is true that women in Afghanistan are systemically subjugated (they cannot escape the systems that oppress them), while Catholic women are not (they choose to remain practicing Catholics), I thought the comparisons were apt. I liked the rest of the piece as well.

[libbylibbylibby]

Can you point me to where in the media this is being done? In other words, which (specific) news stories are incomplete?

Honestly, I can't point to the media. I have (truly) limited media exposure. I am speaking more of what I hear from the people around me. I can say that the NYT and NPR do not seem to be presenting that kind of reporting. But I go out with friends, and I have to bite my tongue.

I did want to add WRT Maureen Dowd's piece.... it was just the beginning that I disagreed with. But, again, this was an opinion piece, and I come from a parish, in fact have spent my whole life at a parish where women have been very much valued. Perhaps being a member of the parish I am in, where I feel like I can go to the pastor to discuss issues of child safety, and the church's poor track record, and be able to say "I think in confession last week you generalized a little too much when you said no one can comfort like a mother..." maybe that is what keeps me from walking away.

[saffron]

Honestly, I can't point to the media. I have (truly) limited media exposure. I am speaking more of what I hear from the people around me. I can say that the NYT and NPR do not seem to be presenting that kind of reporting. But I go out with friends, and I have to bite my tongue.


IMO, you can't equate what people are saying with what is being reported in the media. People tend to inject their feelings about the situation into what they read, and be less measured in conversation. I know I've had some conversations this week with people expressing VERY strong opinions about the Catholic church. I don't see those kinds of (yes, inflammatory) comments in the media. But people take what they read/see in the media, add their own opinions/experiences, and then respond. Those kinds of comments are not necessarily what is being stated in the media.

[azul99]

IMO, you can't equate what people are saying with what is being reported in the media. People tend to inject their feelings about the situation into what they read, and be less measured in conversation. I know I've had some conversations this week with people expressing VERY strong opinions about the Catholic church. I don't see those kinds of (yes, inflammatory) comments in the media. But people take what they read/see in the media, add their own opinions/experiences, and then respond. Those kinds of comments are not necessarily what is being stated in the media.

Yes, this.

WRT women in the Church, Libby, I believe you when you say that women are valued in your parish. I don't think, however, that women are valued or respected in the Church as an institution. If they were, I wonder whether the Church would be in the position it is in now.

Thanks for clarifying wrt my questions.

[azul99]

Additionally, this opinion piece from NPR brings to light, to me, a sense of Christ being someone's child. That He understands, and continues to understand, the suffering of those who have been harmed by this scandal. While there are people whose lives have been scarred and destroyed beyond my understanding, as a Catholic, I am called to empathize with them through the spirit of the suffering Christ. And I think the author's intent was to note that there are many priests and religious who are NOT harming children or the elderly, or those who are in positions of "weakness" relative to them. That was what it seemed to me, but only after reading her blog..

While I do understand this, to my mind this explanation is relevant to the (very valid) question of, "why do bad things happen to good people? Why does God allow this?" It is this very thinking that I call on when I am distressed and asking these questions.

This explanation does not, however, respond to the question, "why did the Pope turn his back on these horrific deeds, and not address them? Why did he knowingly allow a priest who had been reported to have tied up and raped children, who himself had asked to be defrocked, to continue to work with children?"

The notion of God suffering with us - a very valid explanation indeed for random, inexplicable evils and sorrows - does not respond to that query. The only party who can respond to that query is the Pope himself. And he is not responding.

[libbylibbylibby]

IMO, you can't equate what people are saying with what is being reported in the media. People tend to inject their feelings about the situation into what they read, and be less measured in conversation. I know I've had some conversations this week with people expressing VERY strong opinions about the Catholic church. I don't see those kinds of (yes, inflammatory) comments in the media. But people take what they read/see in the media, add their own opinions/experiences, and then respond. Those kinds of comments are not necessarily what is being stated in the media.

Right, and I should have clarified that. I should add that, as a teacher in a vocational school district looking for a new superintendent, I feel like I have been seeing a lot of "comments not reported in the media officially, but appearing on the local paper's webpage." Hence my limited media exposure.
I wonder too if there are other people who just can't watch TV news? I was at a restaurant the other day, and the news was on, and it was just so busy! It was difficult to really follow any story.

[libbylibbylibby]

This explanation does not, however, respond to the question, "why did the Pope turn his back on these horrific deeds, and not address them? Why did he knowingly allow a priest who had been reported to have tied up and raped children, who himself had asked to be defrocked, to continue to work with children?"

The notion of God suffering with us - a very valid explanation indeed for random, inexplicable evils and sorrows - does not respond to that query. The only party who can respond to that query is the Pope himself. And he is not responding.

i agree with you on this, and I do think Andrew Sullivan's articles have addressed the kind of thinking that could lead to this shameful behavior taking place. But even those only postulate the kind of thinking that leads to this action. Another NPR story I heard was from a former priest who had left the priesthood and had worked to aid those who were suing the Church in cases like these.... long story short, he felt (in a six year follow up) that the institutional structures were so entrenched that there was no way of fixing it. It was sad to listen to, and I think I may have felt more sad because I am really committed to the *faith* of the Catholic church, and it's like being committed to teaching and thinking that you really can change things with Arne Duncan.
Anyway, I feel like I need to walk away from this thread, not because it is not valid and worth discussion, but because I can't usefully participate any more in it. I do appreciate having the opportunity to clarify my thinking, and looking carefully at what I can do and should do.

[Ali]

And re: this paragraph:
But the painful and incomplete news stories that have dominated this Holy Week helpfully illustrate how and why I am able to continue on in faith. Particularly during the Easter Triduum, we are thrust deeply into the crucifixion narrative of the Gospels. There, on the wood of the cross, we encounter Jesus, son of Mary, who knew shame, betrayal, abandonment, scorn, jeering, ridicule, unimaginable pain and sorrow, and submitted to them, in order to draw us into a consoling embrace that says, "I know what you are feeling; I know what you are thinking. You tortured ones, you shamed ones, you innocent ones, you slandered ones; I am the One who knows, and we are actually all in this together, and quite outside of time."

Does this paragraph intend to compare the Pope with Jesus vis-a-vis sufferings? (Seriously?) Because "shame, betrayal, abandonment, unimaginable pain and sorrow" - yes, for sure, there has been suffering beyond belief here, but on the part of the victims of these heinous crimes, - not the Pope. The Pope is emphatically not the victim here.

When I read it, not at all. I read it as Jesus looking down on those truly hurting and injured and offering His love to them. He can fully understand all of our human suffering (and in these cases the victims have been betrayed, abandoned, and scorned). To me He is saying to not leave Him because of the stupidity and ignorance of men.

[azul99]

When I read it, not at all. I read it as Jesus looking down on those truly hurting and injured and offering His love to them. He can fully understand all of our human suffering (and in these cases the victims have been betrayed, abandoned, and scorned). To me He is saying to not leave Him because of the stupidity and ignorance of men.

Understood, and agreed - but I don't think that speaks to the role of the Church (as opposed to Christ). IOW, how does that speak to the actions and inactions of the Church?

In any case, thanks for clarifying.