Catholic Sex Abuse Criticism = Anti-Semitism?

Smallc · April 2, 2010

BERLIN — At a solemn Good Friday service, Pope Benedict XVI's personal preacher likened the tide of allegations that the pontiff has covered up sex abuse cases to the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism." But within hours, facing a storm of criticism at the comparison, the Vatican felt it necessary to distance the pope from the preacher's remarks.
Both Jewish and victims' groups responded that it was inappropriate to compare the discomfort being experienced by the church leadership in the sex abuse scandal to the violence that culminated in the Holocaust. The Vatican has been on the defensive in recent days, saying the church has been singled out and collectively stereotyped for the problem of pedophilia, which it says is a society-wide issue.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100402/church_abuse_100402/20100402?hub=TopStoriesV2

I personally think that this is....a tad over the top.

ToadBrother · April 2, 2010

I personally think that this is....a tad over the top.

It's certainly that. It also shows just how little the Church gets it. I've been reading some of the editorials that pro-Vatican supporters in the UK have been writing to the Telegraph. They amount to "Yes, diddling little kids is wrong, but no one else should complain, only the diddled, everyone else is just taking advantage of the situation!"

The chief problem right now is there is at least some evidence that the former Cardinal Ratzinger was directly responsible for some of the games of "hide the pedophile" that were going on. I think the Vatican is scared out of wits that as these cases proceed, a smoking gun or two is going to be found. It's going to make the Pope's position considerably more difficult, but the Cardinals chose Ratzinger because they wanted a hard-line conservative, and now they get to live with what the hard-line conservatives have been up to.

Canon Law does permit a Pope to resign (most famously Celestine V). I doubt this would be sufficient, but it's going to weaken the conservatives' substantially if it does turn out their champion and representative chose to go around helping pedophiles escape justice.

Bonam · April 3, 2010

Yeah I saw that article in the news this morning. That guy speaking on behalf of the Church is crazy. But then, religious nuts have always been crazy.

Shady · April 3, 2010

I fail to see the controversy.

the use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism
Link

What's so wrong about that? I don't see a comparison to any Holocaust. I see a comparison to some aspects of anti-semetism. Anti-semetism was around long before the 1940's in Germany.

The chief problem right now is there is at least some evidence that the former Cardinal Ratzinger was directly responsible for some of the games of "hide the pedophile" that were going on.

I'd love to see the evidence. So far, from what I've read, there really hasn't been much.

Bonam · April 3, 2010

I fail to see the controversy.

What's so wrong about that? I don't see a comparison to any Holocaust. I see a comparison to some aspects of anti-semetism. Anti-semetism was around long before the 1940's in Germany.

What's wrong with it? What's wrong with it is that hatred of and discrimination against an ethnic/religious group is completely different from reasonable criticism of the misdeeds of the officials of a specific institution. How one could fail to see this distinction escapes me. The Church would be hard pressed to find an analogy less applicable if they tried.

ToadBrother · April 3, 2010

What's so wrong about that? I don't see a comparison to any Holocaust. I see a comparison to some aspects of anti-semetism. Anti-semetism was around long before the 1940's in Germany.

All I see is a representative of the Church somehow trying to blame criticism of the Church on the critics. The Church, unlike the Jews, has done this entirely to itself. Maybe God will turn a blind eye, but the rest of the world is under no such obligation. The Church did evil to children, and it's only right that there be general anger. If the Church doesn't like it, admit it was wrong fully, co-operate fully, and if the Pope was shown in his previous incarnation to have been responsible, well, surely a man who claims to be the spokesman for the Almighty can't be a craven, too afraid to admit his flaws.

The Church is only digging itself in deeper here, and for what?

I'd love to see the evidence. So far, from what I've read, there really hasn't been much.

He was one of the highest ranking priests in Germany at the time of a number of incidents. Unless he's going to invoke the Kenneth Lay defense and plead ignorance and/or incompetence, someone has to explain how he would not have been directly involved in such decisions.

CANADIEN · April 3, 2010

I fail to see the controversy.

What's so wrong about that? I don't see a comparison to any Holocaust. I see a comparison to some aspects of anti-semetism. Anti-semetism was around long before the 1940's in Germany.

If you are unable to see the difference between hatred and justifiable anger at the cover up of crimes against children by high-ranking Church officials, that's says a lot about your graps of simple logic.

Shady · April 3, 2010

What's wrong with it? What's wrong with it is that hatred of and discrimination against an ethnic/religious group is completely different from reasonable criticism of the misdeeds of the officials of a specific institution.

My understanding of it was that his statement was directed toward some of the unreasonable criticism.

All I see is a representative of the Church somehow trying to blame criticism of the Church on the critics.

No, not all criticism.

He was one of the highest ranking priests in Germany at the time of a number of incidents. Unless he's going to invoke the Kenneth Lay defense and plead ignorance and/or incompetence, someone has to explain how he would not have been directly involved in such decisions.

You claimed that there was some evidence. What you just stated isn't evidence at all. Again I ask. I'd love to see the evidence you're talking about. Please provide some.

Bonam · April 3, 2010

My understanding of it was that his statement was directed toward some of the unreasonable criticism.

And that compares to pogroms (a classical symptom of antisemitism) how?

Shady · April 3, 2010

And that compares to pogroms (a classical symptom of antisemitism) how?

Was that mentioned?

Bonam · April 3, 2010

Was that mentioned?

It was implied. When one speaks of antisemitism, or any such loaded term, one invokes all the connotations.

My point remains, criticism of the Church's practices in regards to pedophilia is in no way analogous to the widespread hatred of, discrimination against, and murder of, a specific ethnic/religious group.

Do you disagree?

CANADIEN · April 3, 2010

It was implied. When one speaks of antisemitism, or any such loaded term, one invokes all the connotations.

My point remains, criticism of the Church's practices in regards to pedophilia is in no way analogous to the widespread hatred of, discrimination against, and murder of, a specific ethnic/religious group.

Do you disagree?

Even if that's not what that preacher had in mind, he should have known that a lot of people would come to that conclusion.

Circling the wagon and lashing violently (and in this case) stupidly) at the critics will not hide the fact that many in the Chruch hierarchy have tried for years and years to cover up abuse committed by some priests for no other reason than to preserve the image of the institution. In doing so, they've betrayed their Chruch, the faithful and God. Shame on them.

Edited April 3, 2010 by CANADIEN

eyeball · April 3, 2010

"Yes, diddling little kids is wrong, but no one else should complain, only the diddled, everyone else is just taking advantage of the situation!"

Speaking of analogies and apologists, I'm reminded of the abuse and even charges of anti-semitism I've had heaped on me when comparing super-power interference with weaker nations to the diddling of children. In this regard the West is much like the Church in so many ways, conflicted, torn but above all else it's...above all else.

Circling the wagon and lashing violently (and in this case) stupidly) at the critics will not hide the fact that many in the Chruch hierarchy have tried for years and years to cover up abuse committed by some priests for no other reason than to preserve the image of the institution. In doing so, they've betrayed their Chruch, the faithful and God. Shame on them.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Edited April 3, 2010 by eyeball

Shady · April 3, 2010

It was implied.

I disagree with your premise.

When one speaks of antisemitism, or any such loaded term, one invokes all the connotations.

Again I disagree with your premise. That might be your opinion. It certainly isn't mine. Esepecially when the statement in question specifically cites only the use of stereotypes and the passing of individual guilt to the guilt of the colletive.

Even if that's not what that preacher had in mind, he should have known that a lot of people would come to that conclusion.

I agree.

bloodyminded · April 3, 2010

Again I disagree with your premise. That might be your opinion. It certainly isn't mine. Esepecially when the statement in question specifically cites only the use of stereotypes and the passing of individual guilt to the guilt of the colletive.

But they use anti-semitism specifically as an analogy...because they know it's such a loaded term that it helps to shut down debate--which is the plan, of course.

Shady · April 3, 2010

But they use anti-semitism specifically as an analogy...because they know it's such a loaded term that it helps to shut down debate--which is the plan, of course.

By they, you mean one particular person. Who has since apologized. And yes, they've completely shut down debate. :rolleyes:

bloodyminded · April 3, 2010

By they, you mean one particular person. Who has since apologized. And yes, they've completely shut down debate.

Whenever anyone misuses the "anti-semite" label, they are potentially increasing the problem of anti-semitism.

Edited April 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

ToadBrother · April 3, 2010

You claimed that there was some evidence. What you just stated isn't evidence at all. Again I ask. I'd love to see the evidence you're talking about. Please provide some.

Well I did admit he could be inept.

Shady · April 3, 2010

Whenever anyone misuses the "anti-semite" label, they are potentially increasing the problem of anti-semitism.

I agree.

Well I did admit he could be inept.

I also agree.

BubberMiley · April 3, 2010

The Catholic Church is despised by a whole lot of people. Whenever a group is hated, it behooves them to garner sympathy by claiming they are being unjustly persecuted. "Anti-semitism" is the most effective modern-day description of unjust persecution.

So the question turns to whether that persecution or hatred is really unjust, or whether you think facilitating child abuse is a bad thing.

ToadBrother · April 4, 2010

The Catholic Church is despised by a whole lot of people. Whenever a group is hated, it behooves them to garner sympathy by claiming they are being unjustly persecuted. "Anti-semitism" is the most effective modern-day description of unjust persecution.

So the question turns to whether that persecution or hatred is really unjust, or whether you think facilitating child abuse is a bad thing.

The problem here is that there really is no comparison between a thousand years of anti-Semitism in Europe (in at least some cases promulgated by the very organization now claiming a similar burden), all the abuses, persecutions, exiles, murders and pogroms culminating in the Holocaust with the Church getting much justified heat for protecting child molesters and of putting its own short-term interests ahead of the victims. And every time one of their idiotic spokesmen opens their mouths, it's to trot out these inanities which only serve to dig them in deeper.

Shady · April 4, 2010

The problem here is that there really is no comparison between a thousand years of anti-Semitism in Europe (in at least some cases promulgated by the very organization now claiming a similar burden), all the abuses, persecutions, exiles, murders and pogroms culminating in the Holocaust with the Church getting much justified heat for protecting child molesters and of putting its own short-term interests ahead of the victims. And every time one of their idiotic spokesmen opens their mouths, it's to trot out these inanities which only serve to dig them in deeper.

I agree. I also don't think there's any comparison between what you stated. However, that clearly wasn't the original comparison. No comparison made with murders and pogroms etc. That's all been added in by you and other posters.

I'll provide the exact quote again, in which many of you seem to purposely ignore.

the use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt
Link

ToadBrother · April 4, 2010

I agree. I also don't think there's any comparison between what you stated. However, that clearly wasn't the original comparison. No comparison made with murders and pogroms etc. That's all been added in by you and other posters.

I'll provide the exact quote again, in which many of you seem to purposely ignore.

Oh, I don't blame all Catholics. I don't even blame all priests. Most certainly the large majority are decent men. But the Church itself, is hierarchy of authority, yes, that is to blame, and it must be made to pay, as any organization that caused so much harm must be made to pay. And if it is revealed that the Pope was responsible in his previous role, then he should be brought to justice just as surely as any corporate executive should be if they aid and abet malfeasance.

Do you disagree?

Shady · April 4, 2010

And if it is revealed that the Pope was responsible in his previous role

But I thought you already stated that Cardinal Ratzinger was directly responsible. And that there was evidence of his responsibility. Again I ask, where's your evidence?

And no, I wouldn't blame the entire hierarchy of the church. Just as I wouldn't blame the enitre boards of education for sexually abusive teachers.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Shady

CANADIEN · April 4, 2010

But I thought you already stated that Cardinal Ratzinger was directly responsible. And that there was evidence of his responsibility. Again I ask, where's your evidence?

And no, I wouldn't blame the entire hierarchy of the church. Just as I wouldn't blame the enitre boards of education for sexually abusive teachers.

School boards do not routinely try to hide cases of sexual abuse. And people speaking at official events do not evoke anti-Semitism in the hope of silencing critics.