I confess to priming Patrice, an old friend and the resident Catholic theologian here, for this. I have known here for many years, and she is what I would call a passionate and rebellious Catholic scholar, and hoping she would weigh in on my criticism of the Catholic Church in the wake of the treatment of high school senior Jessica Urbina, which I view as symptomatic of the Church as it is of the schools. As I expected, however, Patrice makes a strong case.
Here is her Comment of the Day on the post, The Humiliation of Jessica Urbina:
Well, you knew I was going to respond, right?
“The cruel treatment of Jessica is one more indication of the sorry state of the Catholic Church, which appears to be a fatal cesspool of hypocrisy, desperate public relations, and an integrity vacuum. There are two kinds of Catholics, it seems: those who profess the be devout followers of the Church but who discard and violate its doctrine and core principles whenever they seem too burdensome, unpopular or embarrassing, and those who blindly follow the dictates of the Church, no matter how clearly they have been proven wrong and wrongful by the accumulated experience and wisdom of civilization, because morality never changes.”
So, what am I? The feckless “Cafeteria Catholic” or the “Fundamentalist Catholic”? I really take exception to your gross generalizations about Catholics as being one or the other of your versions. Knowing me, Jack, how could you make such generalizations?
As a sometime student of Theology, I prefer to see myself as a Catholic who dissents in good conscience from certain teachings of the Church — not because they are “too burdensome, unpopular, or embarrassing,” but because I believe that there is more to be learned from the core teachings of Jesus than what we have thus far proclaimed. And for the record, I am saddened by what happened to Jessica. What the school did (notice I say school, not church) was not compassionate, kind, or tolerant.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”The problematic part comes after that: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” It’s kind of a Catch 22. Does the Church see a well-formed conscience as one that has been properly educated (indoctrinated?) in the “truths” that the Church has put forth, and therefore agrees with the Church on all matters? Maybe. I suspect that this conscience thing was intended to give courage to Catholics who would have to disobey their “Catholic conscience” to do something they were being encouraged or forced to do in the secular world that is against Church teachings. Thus, martyrs. Regardless, I stand by my educated conscience.
I hold up the subjects of my senior thesis, which was about dissent in the Church: Hans Küng and Charles Curran. Both censured for their dissent, but still voices in the wilderness. Look at Pierre Telhard de Chardin. Got into a lot of trouble for his writings, but somewhat “rehabilitated” in today’s world of theological thought.
With regard to Jessica, I see this as an educational system problem, because it might have happened at any school. The fact that it happened at a Catholic school makes it look like a Catholic problem, but I sense that you would find the same problem in schools in various places around the country, as well as other denominations which teach (yes, there are others) that homosexuality is wrong/forbidden/whatever. I’m sure I’m breaking one of your principles here, but really I do see this as an authoritarian school problem first and foremost. It’s also a self-expression issue.
I personally wish Jessica great success as she, no doubt, continues to break the barriers that keep her and others from being and expressing who they are.
Ethics Alarms 
Sorry, Patrice. Not good enough. Academically interesting, both scholarly and dedicated in tone, but insufficient to support the Roman Catholic Church. Just one example here: Any religious organization who transfers pedophiles around to different parishes instead of kicking them out, who pays hush money to the families of abused children for decades, cannot and will not have my respect. Ever. Why did it take one man, abused by a priest who later put a simple classified ad in the NY Times (“Remember Father ____?”) which got hundreds of responses, to open the floodgates of this horror and put it into the judicial system? Is this the way a religious organization (or any non-profit) should behave? How can you exempt that? How can you separate the goals from the deeds? The positives from the unmentionable negatives? A church representing “God on earth?” Really? Exactly how does this behavior support that?
Don’t buy it. How often do people judge the positive actions of a person and conveniently ignore his or her personal unethical (or illegal) behavior? It’s one big rationalization. That’s it.
Elizabeth, I’d like to put the record straight re pedophiles and the Roman Catholic Church.
You are mistaken in passing off the abuse crisis as a “pedophilia” crisis. Here’s the truth: In the general population, the majority of reported child sex abuse victims are female. The John Jay research study of Catholic clergy abuse 2004 reported 81% of victims were male, only 19% of alleged victims were female. In addition, over 78% of victims were aged 11 years or older at the time of the alleged abuse, with over 27% being between the ages 15 and 17. Pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Statistics showed the Catholic clergy scandal was largely a crisis of homosexual men preying on teenage boys. This is a fact that is “conveniently ignored” by the press.
Further, if you want to criticize organizations for transferring abusers out, you should start with the public schools. They are well known for “passing the trash.”
For your consideration, between 1991 and 2000 US educators sexually victimized 290,000 children.(1) Contrast this to the total of about 11,000 individuals allegedly abused by Catholic clergy dating back to 1950.(2) For me, one case of abuse is too much, and I totally condemn abuse wherever it happens, but I want to highlight the enormity of the problem in the public schools which receives little or no publicity. The Catholic Church is not the only organization to have abused children. It is, however, the only organization to be targeted relentlessly by the corrupt, dishonest, biased, liberal controlled so- called “free press.”
With regards to Miss Urbina, she and her family should have had respect and regard for the school rules. They presumably agreed to abide by them on admission to the school.
(1) George Weigel, “Church gets an unfair rap: Pope has been at forefront of change,” Philadelphia Inquirer, April,2010.
(2) John Jay College of Criminal Justice, “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States,” 2004.Available at http://www.usccb.org/nrb/
What? I have never seen the term “setting you straight” be more absurdly and infuriatingly applied…
1. Who didn’t see this as homosexual men WHO WERE ALSO PEDOPHILES preying on boys? What else was someone to think it was? Is your point that the problem is gays, not priests and the Church? That’s crap, and not just crap, but offensive crap.
2. The Catholic Clergy crisis was a crisis of a Church purporting to represent virtue and the word of God as well as caring for the weak and vulnerable TURNING A BLIND EYE TO HELPLESS VICTIMS WHO WERE PLACED IN THE CHURCH’S TRUST BELIEVING IT WAS THE INSTITUTIONAL EMBODIMENT OF GOOD AND WOULD NEVER, NEVER HARM A CHILD, CHOOSING INSTEAD TO NOT ONLY COVER UP CRIMINAL ABUSE AND CHILD RAPE BUT FACILITATE IT. Got that? And anyone, like you, who tries to spin it any other way is a co-conspirator as far as I’m concerned.
3. This—“Further, if you want to criticize organizations for transferring abusers out, you should start with the public schools”–marks you as a rank rationalizer, an ethics dunce, and a damned fool. No, we shouldn’t start with the schools, because we’re discussing the Church. The Church is not excused for its rank betrayal, no matter what other institutions have engaged in similar outrages. Moreover, the schools do not profess to teach others the way of good, kindness, holiness and Jesus’s teachings. This was an organizational, systemic failure of character and integrity, orchestrated from high places, the equivalent, in some cases, of a religious sex ring. Don’t you dare think changing the subject is a defense.
4. “The Catholic Church is not the only organization to have abused children.” You despicable, dishonest, corrupt ass! And when has the Church ever accepted “I’m not the only one who committed this sin” to stand as a defense, explanation or excuse, much less a mitigating factor? The Catholic Church isn’t just any organization, it is a church, a moral exemplar and assumes the role of a beacon for civilization. Its betrayal was epic and beyond comparison to any other event. It was evil from the organization that exists to bring good into the world. I know of nothing worse.
You have attempted to defend the indefensible. Enough people like you, and the indefensible is certain to occur again.
Rationalizations, rationalizations, rationalizations. Pedophilia defined as only abuse of “prepubescents?” That’s a great one (and just one of many), and so stupid it’s not worth a comment. You clearly did a lot of research on this… Bad research, but research anyway. Why go back to that one post and comment only on it?
I stand by my comment. I wasn’t talking about the public schools or anyone else (though I have weighed in on them before). I was talking about the Roman Catholic Church. “Set me straight?” Sorry, kiddo. I stand by my comments, which were specific to one particular post.. And by the way, I’ll let Marshall’s reply to you fill in the blanks. “Foul mouthed?” You’re a moron. And clearly unable to see the forest for the trees.
If you don’t want dialogue, if you don’t want people to disagree and discuss their opinions. then get off the site. I don’t need or want to “be set straight” by the kind of post you wrote. This blog is meant to foster discussion of varying opinions, and if you can’t take it, stay off it. I hope you got some satisfaction spending such a huge amount of time writing your useless reply to me. Have fun at mass. And keep track of those altar boys… or are they not “prepubescent?”
PS from Elizabeth. For some reason I thought you were a woman replying. Maybe not. Are you a priest? How many parishes have YOU served in?
It’s clear this site is not meant for dialogue, debate or truth. Your foul-mouthed comments say more about you than they ever will about me.
It is clear, is it? Strange that so much dialogue takes place here when debaters don’t make an effort to distort facts, logic and truth in an unethical effort to excuse the unforgivable.
This is clear, jerk: when a defender of child rape and the supposed religious institution that enabled it attempts to paper over reality and change the subject, dialogue, debate, and especially truth, demand calling that dangerous and harmful attitude exactly what it is, and properly identifying the speaker or writer for what his words prove he is.
For the record, I respond similarly to Holocaust deniers, the correspondents from Chimpmania, and those who assert that 9-11 was the handiwork of the American President or “the Jews”. As for “foul-mouthed,” if you can give me a nicer synonym for “despicable, dishonest, corrupt ass,” I’d be happy to use it. None of those words are unacceptable in a family paper, however—I discarded several more accurate descriptions that would be.
Go hang out at a Chuckie Cheese.