Catholic Bishop Blames Victims Of Child Molesting Priests

[beam me up scottie]

Catholic Bishop Blames Victims Of Child Molesting Priests

A Catholic Bishop based in New York is in hot water after testifying that the victims of child molesting priests are partly to blame for being raped and sexually assaulted.

Calls for Bishop Robert Cunningham to step down are growing louder after it was revealed the bishop testified in a sworn deposition that in the eyes of the church a child molested by a priest has committed a sin, claiming about one such victim:

The boy is culpable.

In the deposition, Cunningham not only said,”the boy (the victim) is culpable,” he also referred to victims as “accomplices.”

...

Commenting on the story, David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said:

Blaming a victim of childhood sexual violence for his or her trauma is among the most inhumane things I can imagine a person saying, especially a well-educated man like a bishop.

Clohessy added:

It’s important to remember that a deposition remarks are the opposite of off-handed remarks. Cunningham chose his words carefully. That makes his callousness even more alarming.

At this point in time, nothing that members of the Catholic clergy say or do should come as a surprise. The litany of horrors committed, enabled, and excused by Catholic clergy members would fill volumes

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/09/catholic-bishop-blames-victims-of-child-molesting-priests/

[trotsky]

1. Beyond disgusting.

This is still happening TODAY.

[beam me up scottie]

2. The UN confronted the Vatican over their secrecy last year:

UN panel confronts Vatican on child sex abuse by clergy

The Vatican has been confronted publicly for the first time over the sexual abuse of children by clergy, at a UN hearing in Geneva.

Officials faced a barrage of hard questions covering why they would not release data and what they were doing to prevent future abuse.
They insisted the Church had learnt from the crisis and had taken action to prevent future abuse.

Victims' advocates complained there was still too little transparency.

Last month, the Vatican refused a request from the UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) for data on abuse, on the grounds that it only released such information if requested to do so by another country as part of legal proceedings.

...

When asked if the Vatican would hand over Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, a Polish papal envoy recalled from the Dominican Republic in September amid claims of sexual abuse there, Archbishop Tomasi said he was being investigated by the Vatican's own prosecutors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25748952

[trotsky]

4. If anything exposes how the core teachings of the RCC are morally repulsive...

it's that someone deeply ingrained in the theology blames a CHILD for being raped.

The UN should continue to go after this institution that ruins lives and exacerbates the poverty it claims to want to alleviate.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Preventing women from getting birth control dooms them to a lifetime of poverty.

And in the US Catholic owned hospitals are creating more victims in its war on women by denying them health care.

More of those Catholic family values we hear so much about.

[rug]

23. What core teaching approves child rape?

I'll wait.

[guillaumeb]

27. There is a difference between the core teachings of the church

and the political/power games of the hierarchy.

[trotsky]

47. Oh really?

So you know better than the RCC? Wow, get yourself to Rome and straighten them out! What are you waiting for? We could really use your help!

You do realize that the RCC has steadfastly promoted its priests (and itself) as above secular law, right? Do you realize how that could translate into the behavior exhibited by the church, denying problems, blaming victims, helping priests avoid prosecution, etc.?

[guillaumeb]

51. What you wrote pertains to the politics of the RCC.

And the politics have nothing to do with the core message of Jesus.

[trotsky]

52. I am just in awe to finally meet the one human being on earth who KNOWS...

what the "core message of Jesus" is. Christians have been fighting and killing each other for centuries over that - but here you are to put an end to it.

So what are you waiting for? GO FIX THINGS!

[Lordquinton]

53. Given that the Church is the one that defined the message of Jesus

I think the distinction is a moot point.

[trotsky]

54. Shhh

I haven't pointed out to him yet that I was specifically referring to the "core teachings of the RCC." He shifted the goalposts; I want to see where this goes.

[guillaumeb]

55. No church defines the message. It is defined by the Gospels.

But many church politicians have interpreted the message of Jesus in an effort to support the government of whatever country the particular church is located in. That is why the Church of England was created by Henry. He needed a more compliant group to validate his actions.

In the US, "supply side Jesus" was created to validate that rich people deserve to be rich because being rich is a sign of divine favor.

The Founders of the US talked grandly of all men being create equal, but the reality was that they meant white men of property. Again, the variance between rhetoric and reality.

[trotsky]

56. Jesus told slaveowners how to take care of their slaves.

Rather than just saying "Slavery is wrong. Don't do it." So his message had a bit of work needed on that equality thing, too.

Rhetoric vs. reality indeed.

[guillaumeb]

57. Are you criticizing a message written 2000 years ago

by 2015 sensibilities?

Why no criticism of the slave owning Founders of the US?

Indeed, rhetoric vs. reality.

[cleanhippie]

58. The constitution has been changed to reflect the current values that owning slaves is bad.

The bible has no such changes, and no method of amending such a terrible idea. And why is that? Because it's the word of God, that's why.

[guillaumeb]

59. and the word, like all words written and spoken everywhere,

has been interpreted in different ways. And often these interpretations, like that of Henry VIII of England, serve the interests of the powerful. But that does not mean that the message of Jesus was meant as a comfort to the rich.

[cleanhippie]

60. How do instructions from God explicitly stating how to treat your slaves

Get misinterpreted?

And if it's the divine word of God, shouldn't the meaning be clear to all that read it?

[PassingFair]

63. And did the omnipotent one change his mind about slavery?

Or should they still obey their masters?

Did Abraham Lincoln change God's mind?

[cleanhippie]

64. Well, since no one has heard from that deity in a couple thousand years...

I'd say no, that god did not change his mind.

Humans have taken upon themselves to decide what's right and wrong, through secular values.

[trotsky]

68. So slavery was OK with your god at one time?

Fascinating.

[beam me up scottie]

69. He evolved.

[trotsky]

72. Oh, snap! n/t

[guillaumeb]

70. Slavery was considered to be a necessary thing, if not a good thing,

by many peoples in many countries. That includes, of course, the US.

As to "my god", my conception of the Creator is not the point of this post. If I post about my conception of the Creator I will answer questions at that time.

[trotsky]

71. No, what your god thinks about it is key.

Because that was my entire point in this red herring of a subthread that you started.

Jesus never said anything about slavery being a bad thing that we should move away from. Worse, what he allegedly DID say about slavery was to outline how slaves should be treated. That's a freaking ENDORSEMENT of the institution!

So to circle back around to where this subthread branched off (with you claiming a distinction between the teachings of the Catholic church and the "core message" of your god), your god was fine with slavery as long as you didn't beat your slaves too hard.

[guillaumeb]

73. What about wage slavery?

And what about the Founder of the US and their tolerance for and support of the institution?

When Jesus talked about slavery it was a discussion rooted in the time. He did not explicitly talk about many topics that are relevant today. But His core message was, "do unto others...", and it is this message that is the foundation of His philosophy. How His followers dealt with the message is anther topic.

[Act_of_Reparation]

74. What the founders thought is irrelevant.

They are not purported to be timeless, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings, and at least one of them (Jefferson) was fully aware of his own fallibility.

And no, the core message of Jesus' teachings is not "do unto others". That is merely what you interpret to be his core message. One could just as easily argue his core message was, "Give up your earthly things and devote yourself to God while there's still time", especially when you consider he talked a great deal more about that.

[guillaumeb]

77. So when Jesus said "the whole of the law is this":

and talked about loving God and treating your neighbor as yourself, that was NOT His core message?

An interesting analysis of Scripture on your part.

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. Let's read that verse in context, shall we?

When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Matthew 22:34-40 (NRSV)


Methinks it does not say what you think it does. Jesus is not commanding his disciples to love their neighbor as themselves, but rather explaining to them that love for God and love for one's neighbor are the moral bedrock upon which Mosaic Law and the teachings of the prophets are built. It does not mean that loving one's neighbor is the law; it means that loving one's neighbor is an emergent property of following the law.

So there's that.

[guillaumeb]

88. A semantical exercise on your part.

When the Sadducees asked "... which commandment in the law...", the question was being framed in the context of revealed law and the commentaries upon the law.

The law, and the commentaries, are and were held as necessary components to living in accordance with the will of the Creator.

So living according to the law entails loving your neighbor. Jesus exhorts His followers to live according to the law.

Now, what exactly did you disagree with in my answer?

[beam me up scottie]

75. Shouldn't the son of an omnipotent deity have known what would be relevant today?

Shouldn't the voice of morality have been more explicit so his followers wouldn't be so ... confused?

[guillaumeb]

78. Are you familiar with the concept of free will, and how it fits in the context

of Scripture?

If I were speaking to an Iron Age audience, I would speak as an Iron Age person.

Agreed?

[beam me up scottie]

79. Seriously? That's the excuse du jour?

Why couldn't God be bothered to put slavery or rape in the 10 commandments?

[guillaumeb]

80. Carving on a stone tablet is not easy,

even for the Creator. Plus 10 Commandments are easier to remember than 10,000.

Have you ever read the one about not coveting your neighbor's wife?

[beam me up scottie]

81. How about 12? Is that too many? Or stick with 10 and substitute.

Personally I think rape and owning slaves are much more morally reprehensible than having other gods or coveting your neighbor's stuff - which includes wives because your god thought told his followers they were property too.

But I'm just a godless heathen, what do I know?

[guillaumeb]

82. Perhaps the Creator, being quite old after all,

had to make the text on the tablets fairly large (I heard the original font size was at least 24) because He did not like wearing His bifocals in front of His people. Yes, I know that vanity is a sin, but forgive Him his self-consciousness.

[beam me up scottie]

83. I know you think this is humourous but as someone who would have been property I'm not laughing.

I despise the inherent misogyny in Christianity and the idiotic myth that we learned morality from the bible.

[guillaumeb]

84. If you had been alive in the Bronze Age, you might have been property.

As might I have been. But I am living now, not 5800BCE, so the what-if is merely an exercise in imagination.

But seriously, the 10 Commandments by themselves are intended as a general guide for living. They were not intended to be a guide to every action that one might take, nor were they intended to address every situation. That is why some of the other prophetic books DID address other situations. And even the prophetic books did not/could not address every possible situation. That explains the commentaries in the three Abrahamic religions.

As to the inherent misogyny in Christianity, the same misogyny, and racism, is also present in the original Constitution of the US. But religions, like nations, do evolve as sensibilities evolve.

I personally have never made the claim that one learns morality from any holy book. One learns morality by being socialized and that happens by living in a particular society. Good people are good people no matter their belief, or non-belief, in a divinity.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Except the Constitution is a living document and is not currently being used to oppress people.

No one claims that the US Constitution is a moral guideline, the comparison of it to the bible is absurd.

[guillaumeb]

87. The Constitution, like the Bible,

is constantly being re-interpreted by the SCOTUS. As well, the meaning of particular parts of the Constitution is in constant change. And the Constitution was used as a legal basis to oppress slaves and the First Peoples.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Again the difference is one is now protecting my rights and the other is being used to restrict them

You're quite the spin meister but I've heard all this crap before and I'm still not impressed.

[guillaumeb]

90. If any religious belief is used as a rationale for restricting your legal rights,

that use is unconstitutional. There is no religious test for office, there is no established religion. But I am unsure how you feel that the concept of religion is a problem. You may have issues with how some people practice their faith, but that does not reflect on the nature of belief, but rather the nature of some believers.

[beam me up scottie]

91. BECAUSE IT'S USED AND DEFENDED AS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTRY

Done here.

[trotsky]

76. Quit trying to change the subject, please.

Although if that's your way to admit you just don't know why Jesus didn't condemn slavery when he had the chance, so be it.

[Lordquinton]

61. And the gospels were written and collected and officiated by...?

Jesus spoke of all men being equal, yet told his followers to be kind to their slaves. I realize you answered this down thread, but your answer was rather lacking, care to take another crack at it with something that doesn't completely undermine your whole concept?

[Dorian Gray]

3. There is no excuse

for what this Bishop said.

Horrible.

[beam me up scottie]

5. Blaming the victim is unconscionable.

Compounding the suffering of the child and his parents.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Add this bishop's churches to the long list of 'bad churches' to be avoided instead of accepting

that there just might be a systemic problem in this institution.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Yes, it's obviously an isolated incident.

I'm sure not attending services there will make all the difference.

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. Let's do this the right way:

"I will never set foot in any of the 142 Catholic Churches, 11 missions, 3 chapels, 5 junior high schools and high schools, 23 elementary schools, or the 3 hospitals spread across Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, and Oswego Counties in the State of New York."

[rug]

24. You left out the 42 residential facilities that care for the disabled.

That's the right way to do this.

[Cartoonist]

9. Cherry-picked testimony

I'm sure he also said some nice things.

Not!

[beam me up scottie]

10. There's no limit to how low they'll go to avoid taking responsibility.

[trotsky]

11. LOL

Nice one.

[mr blur]

12. You really have to question the mental health and stability of people

who continue to support and make excuses for the RCC.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Especially when they excuse and defend from its victims.

Another example of straight male Christian privilege.

[irisblue]

26. alert results

I don't think the KKK itself ever made this claim.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Sep 16, 2015, 06:54 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This was a close one for me, but it's just too broad a brush. Mental health and stability aren't in question here.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: General, not directed at one individual. Stupid but not hide worthy.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Offensive to DU members who are Catholic.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: awful silly alert....LEAVE and alerter stop making DU try to suck irisblue
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given







juror#3 srsly?

[mr blur]

62. Thanks for that irisblue. . .

and to juror#3: no-one has the right not to be offended. Got it?

[Goblinmonger]

14. Is it bad that this doesn't even shock me anymore?

I mean, it's just more bullshit from the bullshit factory.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Not really.

After the documentary Sex crimes and the Vatican nothing the Vatican does really shocks me anymore either.

[Curmudgeoness]

17. I think I'm going to be sick.

It doesn't get much lower than this.

I notice an absence of apologists for the church here. Where are the people who will explain to me why this is not as bad as it sounds?

[beam me up scottie]

18. The ones who call critics of the church "bigots" and "theophobes"?

I'm wondering the same thing.

Zeus knows there's never any reason to criticize and yes HATE the RCC.

[rug]

25. That's probably becase it is as bad as it sounds.

My question is, how does this demonstrate that the"core teachings" of the RCC are the cause, as gleefully claimed upthread?

Do you find that to be as bad as it sounds?

[Curmudgeoness]

28. Core teaching vs. reality.

It really doesn't matter what the core teachings are when that institution is riddled with hypocrisy. The church did hide the abuse, they did move priests around so that they were free to abuse other children, and now they are blaming the victims. That is the reality and that is as bad as it gets. I am glad that you see it as sounding bad as well.

If you want to continue believing in the core teachings, you can do that without supporting the church. The teachings will not change so you would be free to follow them and not have to be sickened by what "your" church has been up to.

[rug]

31. That is a much different - and better - argument.

It's institutional not religious.

The poorer argument you are making is that the solution is to not support the RCC, i.e., just leave.

It's a poor argument because the solution to an institutional problem is rarely to just walk away. There are many, many other ways to combat institutional corruption and hypocrisy. It applies to both religious and nonreligious institutions.

I find the most fervid supporters of the first argument to be those who would like nothing more than the disappearance of religions, for reasons beyond the scandal at hand, which becomes simply an additional rationale to exploit.

The other reason your argument is a poor one is you apparently do not grasp that the structure of the RCC is in fact tied in with the teachings. It is explicitly hierarchical and apostolic, which in turn forms its structure, although, as here, not always its behavior.

I have no problem discussing any aspect of the RCC. I also have no problem debunking anti-Catholic horseshit.

Let me know if you want to have a discussion.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Honestly, this seems to me to be a natural extension of "we are all sinners" or "fallen" and...

other, similar beliefs about human nature. So its a combination of institutional and religious beliefs that can lead to indefensible victim blaming.

[rug]

34. It's more a reflection of the core nature of corporations.

If Cunningham is booted, it will be primarily to preserve the corporation.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. True, though due to my thoughts, and curiousity, I delved, yet again, into the Catechism...

I'm not going to go into it here, but the section on "The Fall" is all kinds of messed up.

I'll admit, I most likely was not properly Catechized at PSR, but, honestly, I think if they did try to do so, I would have abandoned the Church earlier rather than later. I don't think I would have made it to Confirmation.

[rug]

36. No one has satisfactorily answered Epicurus, including Augustine.

Paragraph 7. The Fall

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution,” said St. Augustine,257 and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion.”258 The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace.259 We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.

To be sure, there have been answers to his riddle, but none satisfactory.

[Humanist_Activist]

37. I think its a huge limitation imposed by the fact that the religion posits God is both good...

and the singular creator deity in existence.

I will say, frankly, that that excerpt you pointed out is just a dodge, talking about the "mysteries" in various forms. Mysteries should be solved if possible.

[rug]

38. The problem is any lesser definition would not be a god.

I posted that paragraph, not as an exemplar of logic, but simply as context for what we're talking about.

[Humanist_Activist]

41. I don't see where being good is a precondition to be a god, a god worthy of worship? Probably not...

but one that possibly exists, sure why not?

The only other alternative would be a god who didn't create everything or doesn't have control/influence over everything, one that's not omnipotent, and so isn't alone, but rather competes with others to influence humanity and/or the world. At least this god can be good, though not all-powerful.

[rug]

42. IMO, a god who is not good would lead to entropy, dissolution, collapse. Some may call that evil.

In simplistic terms, good equals creation; bad equals destruction.

Multiple god-like entities would only lead to a Transformers sequel.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. Well, technically, outside of the "collapse" part, you are describing the universe's future.

What with the heat death and all that.

Granted, that's many trillions of years into the future, the universe is young yet, but, if what the astrophysicists and the standard model predicts is anywhere near accurate, there will be a time where the universe will literally be composed of nothing more than empty space-time and a few, sparse, degenerate particles that themselves with decay to almost nothing, trillions of years after the last black hole evaporates from Hawking radiation.

There's no evidence of any being either in or outside the universe attempting to stop this inevitable outcome, so should we conclude that, assuming this a being exists, its malevolent?

By the way, those are the theistic options(for an interventionist deity), obviously there are other options.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. I've never suggested members of the rcc walk away and become atheists.

I point them to splinter faiths based on or from the rcc, like the episcopalians. They are much more progressive.

Of course the structure of the rcc is tied with the teachings. It's designed from stem to stern to control people. It can hardly do that if the people it is meant to control can turn around and seize the reins.

[rug]

50. No, I don't think you have.

Offhand, I can think of five who do so. Regularly. Four of those five are just as quick to attack Episcopalians.

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. They're too busy defending the Church's war on women's health...

...and defending their opposition to extending the statute of limitations on sexual abuse.

[Lordquinton]

19. Everyone who is involved, fro the rapist priests to their enablers should be locked up

Of course that would be most of the hierarchy including both living popes, but that's a price I could live with.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Agree, 100%.

And NOT in the Vatican.

[rug]

32. Who do you consider the rapist priest enablers to be, quinton?

[Lordquinton]

39. You're asking questions, does that mean you've answered the ones you were asked?

No, i don't believe that's the case.

[rug]

40. I don't see an answer. Unsurprisingly.

[Lordquinton]

48. Neither do I

Why don't you get on that.

[rug]

49. Right after you.

The productivity of these exchanges with you are astounding.

Let me know if you ever want to discuss substance.

[Angry Dragon]

21. the church should back up their words with excommunication of this bishop

and he should lose all pension and retirement funds


let's see the catholic church show how much they care about their lay people

[beam me up scottie]

22. That would be a good start.

If it gets enough press the Vatican may actually do something.

[Curmudgeoness]

29. Is that a joke?

How much press did the whole child abuse story get? Did you hear all about the excommunications? Or did you hear cover-ups?

Why would you think that this one bishop making a comment would matter to them?

[longship]

30. Of course he did! That's what they do. nt

[Marrah_G]

44. Waiting to see if the Pope gets rid of the Bishop

Only then will I believe anything has changed.