Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys

[Tempo Gain]

I'm interested in the idea that we only get one chance of joy in this world, which can be ruined forever.

It certainly can't help.

[ThreadKiller]

Their one chance of joy in this world was ruined and God can't kiss it better later.

I'm interested in why you say this.

My meaning seems pretty clear from the preceding and succeeding sentences.

For me - with no belief in something after this - anybody who experiences the horrors of life through abuse isn't going to have respite later in the heavenly kingdom. Their one chance of joy in this world was ruined and God can't kiss it better later. For an atheist, I feel, the abuses in this world are even more horrific - nobody will be soothed later. Death is the end and all we can do is ensure that everyone has the best life now.

Unfortunately many of us have had friends who have experienced sexual abuse in one way or another. I am in no way suggesting that someone abused has no chance of joy and healing (whether they do this healing on church ground or in other settings). But we will all admit that some are deeply scarred for life. In the passage above, I am merely giving my atheist viewpoint. If I don't believe in an afterlife, I can't deal with suffering (mine or others) by thinking that all burdens will be relieved in heaven.

I'm not suggesting that Christians or those of other religions do not focus on the here and now or do not fight abuse now. But whether one believes in an afterlife or not is surely going to influence one's gut reaction to suffering in this world?

[ThreadKiller]

Many studies have confirmed that religious people donate more blood, give more to charities, and spend more of their time in volunteer work than do their non-religious counterparts. I have looked in vain for evidence that the atheist worldview provokes a greater commitment to charity and care for 'out-group' members.

Although a number of my atheist friends are remarkably charitable and actively involved with easing suffering in some form or another, I will concede you this point. I've discussed it with friends before. I wish there were more specifically non-religious charitable organizations. And I do wish atheists contributed more. We should all be doing more, specifically because there is just this world.

I'm not being facetious here, but do you have links or references for those studies; I would be interested in reading them.

[ThreadKiller]

Even if we only look at Christianity, the history of Christianity has been the history of public charity and hospital care

I won't concede this to you though. Christianity may have a history of charitable works, but we know that the history of any large group is going to have horrible blemishes. So alongside charitable works, we have those little hiccups such as crusades, witch hunts, religious wars. And in recent history we have religious charlatans who fail to come through with their claims of healing, those who fight against gay and lesbian rights, a Pope who discourages use of condoms in AIDs-ravaged Africa.

I will not denigrate the good work that the Christian body has done to ease suffering. Having previosuly put in quite a few years in church myself, I will also not belittle the truly good people there who have impressed me with their generous hearts (although I must say that I have also seen much sacrifice and generosity outside of religious groups). But I'd just like to point out that Chrsitian history is far from simple.

The present Catholic abuse scandal will be another blemish - which shouldn't of course reflect on all of Christianity - but should have all Christians asking how this could possibly have been allowed to continue for so long. I myself don't have an answer to that.

[Dragonbones]

I doubt we should characterize it as either the history of public charity and hospital care or the history of crusades, witch hunts, and religious wars. Clearly, the history of Christianity is a highly multifaceted one. While we could engage in debate ad nauseam as to which facets each of us prefer to focus on, due to our own personal experiences, agenda or biases, either side of the argument would be fairly abstract and distant from the topic on hand, which is "Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys".

I would prefer to ask why the Vatican would not defrock such a priest. Even if one takes a highly cynical approach and views the Vatican as an organization with its own interests placed ahead of the abused minors, wouldn't the desire to avoid scandal and promote an image of higher morality and so on motivate stronger action to clamp down on abuses and expel offenders early? And if one does NOT take a cynical approach, then how can one explain such a litany of failures to act appropriately?

[Battery9]

because to atheists there is no God to kiss it better I guess?

That didn't seem to be the sense.

And the one life they have started out really badly. You're not ruined but definitely carry it with you for the rest of your life.

I'm interested in the idea that we only get one chance of joy in this world, which can be ruined forever. Having known a number of abuse victims (one of the reasons why I have largely avoided this thread, as the subject is so abhorrent to me), I've found they don't typically see it that way.

Of course you can have a happy life, but like most bad childhoods (parents fighting, etc) it does tend to come up in some way or another. It screws with your head a little. It can of course be overcome and you can be really happy, but images, smells, sounds must come back every now and again. I think freethinker also means that you only have one chance at being a kid...and to have that happen..it's going to be the one thing you remember the most vividly.

[bismarck]

I would prefer to ask why the Vatican would not defrock such a priest. Even if one takes a highly cynical approach and views the Vatican as an organization with its own interests placed ahead of the abused minors, wouldn't the desire to avoid scandal and promote an image of higher morality and so on motivate stronger action to clamp down on abuses and expel offenders early? And if one does NOT take a cynical approach, then how can one explain such a litany of failures to act appropriately?

It's a good point you bring up. I'd love to know the real reason behind their thinking.

[Fortigurn]

I'm interested in the idea that we only get one chance of joy in this world, which can be ruined forever.

It certainly can't help.

I know for a fact it doesn't.

My meaning seems pretty clear from the preceding and succeeding sentences.

I find these to be more contradictory than complementary:

* 'Their one chance of joy in this world was ruined'
* 'I am in no way suggesting that someone abused has no chance of joy and healing'

In the passage above, I am merely giving my atheist viewpoint. If I don't believe in an afterlife, I can't deal with suffering (mine or others) by thinking that all burdens will be relieved in heaven.

That to me seems axiomatic. What I was concerned about was the impression that your atheist viewpoint led you to the idea that sufferings in the present can't be mitigated in the present either.

I'm not suggesting that Christians or those of other religions do not focus on the here and now or do not fight abuse now. But whether one believes in an afterlife or not is surely going to influence one's gut reaction to suffering in this world?

It does influence people, though in different ways which are not always predictable. Strangely enough, those Christians who are most active in this world (especially politically), are those who believe in an afterlife in which their souls indulge subsequent to the death of their body. Despite preaching heaven and hell at every opportunity, they attempt to control the state by means of direct political involvement at every level available, and are hellbent on throwing their members into the armed forces. This contrasts strangely with the charitable services they provide.

Conversely, there are sects such as mine which believe in the total anihilation of the person at death, and insist on the complete separation of church and state, as well as the utter renunciation of personal political franchise. Members of my sect typically do not work for the government, do not serve in the armed forces, police, or judiciary, and refuse to vote. On the other hand, we receive government recognition for our local and international charity services, and our educational institutions.

So what I'm not seeing here is any indication that belief in a spiritual afterlife contributes significantly to a lack of interest in, or activity to mitigate, the sufferings of the present.

Although a number of my atheist friends are remarkably charitable and actively involved with easing suffering in some form or another, I will concede you this point. I've discussed it with friends before. I wish there were more specifically non-religious charitable organizations. And I do wish atheists contributed more. We should all be doing more, specifically because there is just this world.

I sympathize with you. However, I would be concerned if atheists specifically avoided religious charitable organizations. I don't avoid secular charitable organizations. I would consider that to be a sacrifice of charity on the altar of ideology.

I'm not being facetious here, but do you have links or references for those studies; I would be interested in reading them.

Certainly. Haidt’s study is probably the most oft cited, and the study of Shariff and Norenzayan (which is a little more complex), has also received considerable attention.

I won't concede this to you though. Christianity may have a history of charitable works, but we know that the history of any large group is going to have horrible blemishes. So alongside charitable works, we have those little hiccups such as crusades, witch hunts, religious wars. And in recent history we have religious charlatans who fail to come through with their claims of healing, those who fight against gay and lesbian rights, a Pope who discourages use of condoms in AIDs-ravaged Africa.

I certainly won't deny that. I didn't intend to characterize the history of Christianity as exclusively benign. My comment did have a context:

I hear atheists telling me that atheism guarantees a higher value on life because 'this is the only one we get'.

Yet the relevant history and statistics available do not bear this out.

That was the context of my comment, that the history of Christianity is the history of a response to suffering in the present which is contra-indicatory to the claim I was addressing.

As a member of a sect which was incorporated specifically in order to apply for conscientious objection during the American Civil War (or 'War of Northern Aggression' if you're one of those people), and whose conscientious objectors were subject to brutality (at the hands of the Canadian military), imprisonment (at the hands of the UK, NZ, and South African governments), and firing squad (at the hands of the German government), I can assure you that I feel the same disgust for those Christians who have practiced violence in the past as I do for the allegedly enlightened secular governments who insist on practicing it in the present.

The present Catholic abuse scandal will be another blemish - which shouldn't of course reflect on all of Christianity - but should have all Christians asking how this could possibly have been allowed to continue for so long. I myself don't have an answer to that.

To Christians such as members of my sect, who have always protested vigorously against linear ecclesiological hierarchies, centralized power structures, and implicit faith in the infallibility of almost completely unaccountable authority figures, none of this comes as any surprise. It's simply more of the usual. It's the same reason why we stand aside from secular governments, which to my mind are substantially no different in terms of their systemic corruption and abuse of authority. The psychology is well documented, and is no mystery.

I would prefer to ask why the Vatican would not defrock such a priest.

For the same reason a president would not call for the resignation of an errant senator.

Even if one takes a highly cynical approach and views the Vatican as an organization with its own interests placed ahead of the abused minors, wouldn't the desire to avoid scandal and promote an image of higher morality and so on motivate stronger action to clamp down on abuses and expel offenders early?

It's a balancing act, certainly. It depends on what the PR company suggests is more credible at any given time. Again I refer you to secular governments for an example of the same dilemma.

Of course you can have a happy life, but like most bad childhoods (parents fighting, etc) it does tend to come up in some way or another. It screws with your head a little. It can of course be overcome and you can be really happy, but images, smells, sounds must come back every now and again. I think freethinker also means that you only have one chance at being a kid...and to have that happen..it's going to be the one thing you remember the most vividly.

I quite agree.

[Huang Guang Chen]

Breaking news . . ..

Leading atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seek Pope's arrest
April 12, 2010 - 12:42PM

Two leading atheists are investigating the possibility of arresting the Pope for "crimes against humanity", lawyers have confirmed.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are paying lawyers to investigate whether Pope Benedict XVI should be arrested when he visits Britain in September.

Mr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens believe the Pope should face charges for the alleged cover-up of sex abuse in the Catholic Church, The Guardian reports.

HG

[Fortigurn]

Well there you go, he's good for something other than biology.