Religion

Catholic Church Approves Blanket Forgiveness For Sins During Outbreak

The Vatican has announced that it has granted blanket forgiveness for sins by anyone struck with the coronavirus as well as healthcare workers and those who pray for healthcare workers. Relatives of the sick are also forgiven. I must admit that, as a lawyer raised Catholic, I am surprised by the use of general absolution on this scale. I am also struck by the specificity, including that those who want to take advantage of the option for those who pray must also pray, doing so “for at least half an hour.”

General absolution is not unprecedented. It can be used where there is a widespread catastrophe or danger with no time for a priest to administer confessions. It is also considered warranted when the numbers of those affected are so large as to exceed the capabilities of the Church.

The penitent must still be contrite and agree to seek confession at the soonest possible time.

This order was issued by the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican tribunal that deals with matters of conscience, including confession. It decided that the “grave necessity” of the situation justified the action.

As a lawyer, this seems like quite a potential loophole for the licentious in times of crisis. However, the devil divinity is in the details. The matter is left to local bishops to determine the necessity for general absolution while “taking into account the supreme good of the salvation of souls.”

The use of general absolution has been controversial in countries like Australia where it was commonly invoked.

The tribunal gives specific instructions for absolution in places like “the entrance to hospital wards where faithful in danger of death are hospitalized, using — within the limits of what is possible and with appropriate precautions — means for amplifying the voice so that the absolution is heard.”

252 thoughts on “Catholic Church Approves Blanket Forgiveness For Sins During Outbreak”

  1. Satan runs the Roman Catholic pedophile church. They cannot forgive ANYONE’s sins. Only prayer to Jesus Christ can help you overcome your sins.

    1. It is true that only God forgives sins – the priests offering absolution are God’s instruments, but for the sinner to be forgiven he must truly repent. The actual announcement from the Vatican leaves it up to the bishops to determine if the situation in their respective dioceses is grave enough to call for the general absolution. Again, it is genuine sorrow for one’s sins and the firm and honest intent to amend one’s ways that is important. If that is not present, the sins are not forgiven.

      1. the priests offering absolution are God’s instruments,
        Where in Scripture does it say we need priests to be God’s instruments for the forgiveness of our sins?

          1. “In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head.”

          2. Thanks DSS. But no, it doesn’t say we need Peter or anyone other than Christ Jesus for forgiveness of sins. His crucifixion was a one-time, sacrifice for all of mankind, forever. Not just those in the 1st century and then we need Peter, the diciples and the Church for the forgiveness of our sins moving forward.

            9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Romans 10:9-10

            It doesn’t say anything about forgiveness by a priest.

            1. God forgives sin, assuming there is true repentance. However, please note, again:
              “In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head.”

              1. I bolded the word need twice. Is there a reason you talk around it, instead of answering the question directly?

                1. “Need” is irrelevant here. A priest is empowered to offer absolution – a confirmation, if you will, reassuring a true penitent of God’s forgiveness for those sins confessed for which one is truly sorry. The going-in assumption is that one IS truly sorry.

                  1. Actually, your going-in assumption is that “Need” is irrelevant here. A priest may be empowered to offer reassurance of God’s forgiveness, but we are already assured of that through scripture alone. Why would anyone that believes in what is written about God’s eternal sacrifice for our sins, find it necessary for a priest’s reassurance? Isn’t Christ’s word enough for you?

                    1. This is what it says in the Bible:
                      “In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head.”
                      You are assured of forgiveness subject to repentance. Like the woman taken in adultery. I don’t know where people get the idea the Redemptive Act was a Get Out of Hell No Matter What You Do card.

                    2. Thanks anyway for trying. If there is a next time, read the exact question, answer the exact question and then reread the question and answer to make sure it is all complete.

                      Let’s try it this way. If I follow Roman’s 10:9-10, why would I need a priest for absolution beyond what Christ has already done for me? I’m not asking you what authority a priest has. What do followers of Jesus Christ NEED to do join Jesus in heaven?

                    5. No one said the priest is required. That’s your spin. Priests administer Sacraments – as Christ’s representatives. Peter explains this pretty well in Acts.

                    6. No one said the priest is required.

                      I know. Thanks for finally answering my original question. By the way, there is nothing wrong with you wanting or needing a priest in your life.

        2. “In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head.”

        3. Olly this is a good question. I would say in the Old Testament it does. The priesthood and its rituals. See Leviticus Chapter 16 for the day of atonement.

          In the New Testament, Jesus participated in the rituals of Judaism.

          Catholics believe that the Law was fulfilled in Jesus but not abolished. So in effect it superseded Judaism. But Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures remain holy writ and guidance if not literally then at least as metaphor and conceptual instruction. So we do not practice the Jewish rituals but we have our own, which have a certain lineage in the ancient Mosaic ones.

          IN Catholicism Tradition is also a source of authority, not just Scripture.

          The Catholic church builds upon the foundation of the Judaism, wherein priests enacted rituals for the communal forgiveness of sins. So for example, the rituals of Christianity interpose Christ in the role of the sacrificial lamb, etc. Here my understanding runs out.

          The novel notion is that one can just pray alone and be forgiven. That was not in Judaism and it was not in any of the ancient pagan religions either. For forgiveness to be effectual it takes community ritual involving confession, some element of shame, some element of remorse, and a declaration and shown intention to do differently. This is nearly universal in religions. Even Chan / Zen Buddhists have certain rituals related to repentance, and it’s not clear they are theistic at all.

          If you want a good read on the NECESSITY of public confession and shame to repentance and forgiveness, I recommend Hawthorne’s masterful work The Scarlet Letter.

          1. So for example, the rituals of Christianity interpose Christ in the role of the sacrificial lamb, etc. Here my understanding runs out.

            Good post K. My understanding is the same. OT rituals required the priests to be God’s instrument to the people. Sacrifices of course were part of those rituals. NT is centered on one sacrifice for all sins, for all time.

            For forgiveness to be effectual it takes community ritual involving confession, some element of shame, some element of remorse, and a declaration and shown intention to do differently.

            Forgiveness comes from God. I’m called to truly repent of my sins and go and sin no more. The cross represents two relationships that I have in my faith. The vertical is my relationship with God. The horizontal is my relationship with others.

            1. Forgiveness of wrong — one person to another — will involve an admission of wrongdoing, an apology, and a positive hard-to-fake act showing that wrong will not recur.
              Forgiveness of sin — a person offending a god by doing a forbidden act — would involve communication with the god who gave the orders.

              The second does not override the first. A priest forgiven for his sin of pederasty with a child is not forgiven until and unless the possessor of that violated orifice forgives. Catholic theology disagrees with this paragraph.

              1. if people want to hear what Chan Buddhists believe about repentance here is a thorough description

                http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=167

                Chan Buddhism is in China, what we here call Zen

                they are non-theistic, at least, this sect, and as compared to Hindus

                the issue is not God and what is going on at His level, the issue is what is going on at our level

                if we fail to conform to Divine law, or natural law, or karma, there are consequences, the law of cause and effect. you need to change bad habits or the bad things will come again along with their consequences. call it sin if you like. But seems to me this is a cosmic order; part of the Logos if you will; you can’t get away from this.

                Some days, most days, I still don’t understand Christian theology on “redemption” and “forgiveness,” not after a lifetime of indoctrination and university level theology classes. sometimes i think the issue of guilt and forgiveness are just emotional fixations, and entirely besides the point of repentance and how to do differently going forwards.

                rituals are very important to correcting behavior. you have to replace bad habits with good ones

                12 step programs also are a good source of info for how to repent bad acts and do rightly.

  2. When will Comrade Pope open up the treasures of the Vatican and redistribute?

      1. The objects in the Vatican libraries and museums do not belong to the Pope.

  3. When in doubt go after the Catholic Church.No one really knows that they have cleaned up their act as far as freaky Priests going after kids but the dirty little secret is that the other churches are still just as bad but no one says a word about that and also teachers in public schools that is swept under the rug.

    1. Ben, you are so right. Religious leaders always molest the children. I suspect it is their very reason for becoming priests, ministers and bishops (depending on demonination [no sic]).

      1. The vast majority of men who become priests do not do so to gain access to children. That some priests commit grave sins is, indeed, a scandal.

          1. I think you should read the USCCB reports. And, remember, no matter how grave the sin, we are not the Judge, nor the One who measures repentance. Vengeance is not ours.

      2. Religious leaders always molest the children

        I think it more likely that you always say something stupid when asked about matters abstract from your daily life.

    2. a sad example of this was the Frugal Gourmet. Jeff Smith. he was a tv cook and a good one. And a Methodist minister. At some point he was exposed for sexual crimes. he was sued by 7 men for homosexual exploitation of them when teenagers.

  4. “The President and I promised we’d remind people that on the weekends even though you are not in those pews, it’s still a good idea to, if you can, to go ahead and make that donation, because all the ministries are continuing to play a vital role in our communities.” Mike Pence. Of course he said that in the WH, while performing official duties. What stands out is the word “pews” since most of the world’s religions do not use “pews”. So he must have been talking on behalf of the Jeffress, Osteen’s and Paula White’s and Falwell and Copeland’s of the world that need jet fuel, instead of blood banks and our friends and neighbors that might need help in these times.

    1. Donald J. Trump is the greatest president this country has had in a very long time, possibly ever. We are so grateful that President Trump is at the helm guiding the country through this crisis.

      Joe Biden needs to stay home, stay safe, and keep listening to his president. That way, we can be sure the country will get through this.

  5. There is a website which lists Catholic priests accused of sex offenses. BishopAcountability.org

    It’s a list in alphabetical order of those accused. Some accused for crimes and some in civil cases.

    It is a long list.

    There are many other websites.

  6. And here I thought the sacrifice Jesus made of dying on the cross was our forgiveness. Good thing we have the ex bar bouncer to upstage Jesus.

    1. My thoughts as well TJ. My sins were forgiven by the sacrifice of God’s lamb, Jesus Christ. Nothing in scripture says I need additional forgiveness from a human source. That’s a construct just short of selling indulgences and not far from once again bringing animal sacrifices.

      1. Nothing in scripture says scripture alone; it says to follow both scripture and tradition.

        And yes, it gives priests the authority to forgive sins

        1. Your talking in circles Nan. Where does it say in scripture to follow the Word of God and tradition? Additionally, I didn’t ask if priests have the authority to forgive sins. I asked if it is necessary to receive forgiveness of sins from priests?

          By the way, I have no problem with religious practices that are true to the Word of God.

        2. Absolute Baloney. tradition is man made and an absolute lie. Eph 2 8-10. “by grace you are saved through faith, and not of yourselves. it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST!!!! Tradition is all about boasting and putting the church before Christ.

    2. That was for Original Sin forgiven with baptism. We’re still on the hook for the sins we commit ourselves

  7. Is this a sin against the Bill of Rights, so to speak? What is this about? I am interested in your perspective, Professor Turley (and others’).

    “The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.”

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/doj-suspend-constitutional-rights-coronavirus-970935/

    1. Prairie, I know what Woodruff Swan wanted to say but I have heard no such indication of the broadest of powers being used against American citizens in particular. How can we create a story based on one person’s partisan opinions?

      It is not that I don’t fear the government having more power. I feel that fear with every President no matter the party. My guess is that most of this has to do with illegal aliens and those that wish to harm Americans in general. It also might have to do with the ability of the legal system to do its job during the present crisis. Yes, we should all be mindful of the possibility that once certain powers are taken from the people they will not be given back so whatever is done should be done sparingly and reversibly with oversight though I do not think illegal aliens have the same rights as American citizens.

      1. Allan,
        Those are all important considerations. I would like to see the particular language of the request. As it is presented, it is broad and vague and therefore extremely concerning.

        “those that wish to harm Americans in general”

        That was already passed in, if I recall, the 2012 NDAA. Obama issued a signing statement saying he wouldn’t use that provision. It, too, is worrisome because we are in a perpetual state of war so such detention is essentially infinite.

        1. ” I would like to see the particular language of the request.”

          Prairie, that is the problem. We don’t have it. All we have is the fantasy of a singular person with political objectives that has the microphone and thereby can create news that doesn’t exist.

          “That was already passed in”

          We need strong impenitrable borders along with strict rules for aliens and we need to assess the motives of all people before providing citizenship.

        1. ” a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice.”

          Coming from the Brennan Center (without being able to read more than the headline of the article) one would expect that if Trump cured cancer someone from the Brennan Center would claim that Trump destroyed an entire industry and the Washington Post would jazz it up and make it even more appealing to those that are totally unaware and ill prepared to understand the topic. I can only guess because the Washington Post is behind a paywall and though I pay for some things that I disagree with I don’t pay for rags, The title was “‘Fauci gets frank about Trump: I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down’” which tells us that likely the article is totally worthless. I just so happen to hear Fauci in a half hour interview and he didn’t seem to have enough words of praise of Donald Trump’s actions. He bluntly and clearly stated that Trump asked a lot of questions but followed the science without ever acting against it. He indicated that Trump acted and didn’t diddle so that his China ban and later the Euro ban (that some on this blog objected to) saved the US additional pain.

          1. – by Caroline Fredrickson, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice

          2. A quote from the article: “the Trump Justice Department is floating language to be included in one of the relief packages to address the burden on the judiciary.”

            Note how the claim can be made but they can’t tell anyone what was said. Whether it is the names of people reporting or the actual statements made the Washington Post is notorious for keeping all the facts anonymous. On the other hand it is all but proven that the Obama Administration weaponized the DOJ and a lot of the bureaucracy. Worry about the left and perhaps parts of the right. If anything Trump will try to limit the invasiveness of government while the Democrats try to push more government using COVID-19 as an excuse.

        3. Here’s a link to a Fauci interview related to the accidental posting, above:

          https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/i-m-going-keep-pushing-anthony-fauci-tries-make-white-house-listen-facts-pandemic

          Excerpt:

          Q: What about the travel restrictions? Trump keeps saying that the travel ban for China, which began 2 February, had a big impact on slowing the spread of the virus to the United States and that he wishes China would have told us 3 to 4 months earlier and that they were “very secretive.” (China did not immediately reveal the discovery of a new coronavirus in late December 2019, but by 10 January, Chinese researchers made the sequence of the virus public.) It just doesn’t comport with facts.

          A: I know, but what do you want me to do? I mean, seriously Jon, let’s get real, what do you want me to do?

          Q: Most everyone thinks that you’re doing a remarkable job, but you’re standing there as the representative of truth and facts, but things are being said that aren’t true and aren’t factual.

          A: The way it happened is that after he made that statement [suggesting China could have revealed the discovery of a new coronavirus 3 to 4 months earlier], I told the appropriate people, it doesn’t comport, because 2 or 3 months earlier would have been September. The next time they sit down with him and talk about what he’s going to say, they will say, “By the way, Mr. President, be careful about this and don’t say that.” But I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down. OK, he said it. Let’s try and get it corrected for the next time.

          Q: You have not said China virus. (Trump frequently calls the cause of the spreading illness known as coronavirus disease 2019 a “China virus” or a “Chinese virus.”)

          A: Ever.

          Q: And you never will, will you?

          A: No.

          1. Take note that whenever things are edited and a journalist wishes to make a point he can easily edit. One has to be careful of any conclusions drawn with such material.

            From above: Q: “You have not said China virus.”

            Isn’t Dr. Fauci a member of the White House’s Wuhan coronavirus task force? But I guess despite the name of the task force he might not refer to it as the Wuhan virus either. The Dr. will note it came from Wuhan China so what was the point of the question other than to perhaps disparage the President? If that is the journalists aim and he controls the way the questions are presented and edits the answers, as I said above, one has to be careful about any conclusions drawn.

              2. No Dr. Fauci did not call it the China virus. No, he also didn’t call it the Wuhan virus. What was the interviewer trying to do? He didn’t do much to clarify the situation. His purpose was to demonize Trump. That shouldn’t be mistaken for a real interview even if we forget about the editing.

                No it isn’t the Wuhan task force or the China Task force but it is a Task Force created because of a virus that originated in Wuhan China where China was not as open as it should have been and has wreaked havoc across the world. Does the Dr. know it came from Wuhan? Of course. Does he know it came from China? Of course. What was the interviewer trying to prove by asking Dr. Fauci if he called it the China Virus? That type of interview is vacuous.

  8. “The Vatican has announced that it has granted blanket forgiveness for sins by anyone struck with the coronavirus “

    I could never figure out how that works.

  10. JT here’s one that is more intellectual to address. Besides Catholicism and Islam-ism (sp under question) what other religions are and have been both the only legal government and the only legal church in past history … or present? That is to say a Theocracy. Now the bigots can jump in with their nonsense and garbage for they to be blunt are not part of Constitutinalism.

  11. Sounds like pretty soon that indulgence rings will be for sale in cathedral gift shops. Heading right back to the times of Rodrigo Borgia.

    1. No, it doesn’t sound like that, but you just had to say something. Professional atheists, like liberals in general, have no talent for keeping their peace.

      1. This is the Vatican recognizing that they don’t have enough priests to grant comfort and forgiveness to those who are dying in their thousands. As far as

        “As a lawyer, this seems like quite a potential loophole for the licentious in times of crisis…”

        the disaster overtaking Lombardy and Europe as a whole dwarfs what sins those inside and outside the Church have committed and will always commit when they think no one sees. It’s an act of compassion, because there are neither lawyers nor priests enough to comfort those for whom there is no earthly hope. Let the law deal with the worst of those who may now feel tempted abuse a general absolution.

  12. All the pedophile priests can now get past Saint Peter at the Holy Gates and get in. They “get in’ by more ways than one. Those fags win stick a thing in many places.
    They refer to members of that religion as “Cat O Licks”.
    The Pope is a dope, he’s a dope all the way.

  13. There’s good reason that when people actually were able to read the Bible for themselves that they left the Catholic church. Of course, since predominantly Catholic countries and cities are most affected by the virus outside of China and Iran, I suppose the pope thought he had to do something.

    1. There’s good reason that when people actually were able to read the Bible for themselves that they left the Catholic church.

      In your imagination only. The overwhelming majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, or non-Chalcedonian. Protestant bodies are a stew of apostasy (especially in loci once dominated by Lutherans). God founded not a book but a Church, and the Church assembled the Canon of Scripture.

        1. Nothing I’ve said was false, and you either know that or you know nothing.

    2. You do realize that people were only able to read the Bible for themselves when they became literate? That happened only after Mr Gutenberg created his movable type press, prior to which the only way to create a new copy of the Bible was by painstakingly writing out each individual page.

  14. Jonathan: And what about the thousands of Catholic pedophile priests who have preyed, and still prey, on children? If they contract the coronavirus will they be granted “blanket forgiveness”? General absolution should be reserved for those whose minor sins do not amount to the monumental abuse of children by priests who intentionally engaged in behavior they knew was a grave sin!

    1. Jonathan: And what about the thousands of Catholic pedophile priests who have preyed, and still prey, on children?

      They don’t exist outside your imagination. A great many people made accusations against priests (not accusations of paedophilia, but of pederasty). Mostly solitary accusations rendered 10, 15, 20, or 30 years after the fact. Under ordinary circumstances, few of these accusations would stand up in court.

      1. To “xXXii” hiding in the shadows: So there weren’t thousands of pedophile Catholic priests who sexually preyed on children? They don’t exist outside my “imagination”? According to BishopAccountabilty.org of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops there are more than 6,800 priests credibly accused of the sexual abuse of children with at least 19,00 survivors. The Church has paid out more than $3 billion to date to settle claims. Perhaps you should watch the movie “Spotlight” about the sexual abuse of children just in the city of Boston. But the problem is worldwide so the number of abusing priests is much larger. These are not just “solitary accusations” where “few of these accusations would stand up in court”. Take for example Rev. Gilbert Gauthe, a priest in the Diocese of Lafayette, La. He was indicted in 1984 on 34 counts of sexual crimes against minors In 1986 he plead guilty and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The reason few priests have been criminally charged is because the Church has conducted a massive cover up campaign to protect priests–transferring or retiring them, putting them on leave or in rehab–to avoid their exposure. Seems you are the one with an “imagination” problem!

        1. To “xXXii” hiding in the shadows: So there weren’t thousands of pedophile Catholic priests who sexually preyed on children?

          No, there weren’t. There were thousands of priests accused of pederasty. The number accused of paedophilia was in the three digits.
          There were about 150 priests who accounted for about 30% of the accusations. The others typically had one or two accusations lodged against them, very seldom in real time or even withing a modest run of years. The typical accusation was one of fondling, not sexual relations to orgasm. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          1. “Credibly Accused

            Search lists of U.S. Catholic clergy that have been deemed credibly accused of sexual abuse or misconduct.
            by Ellis Simani and Ken Schwencke,

            January 28, 2020

            with Katie Zavadski and Lexi Churchill

            The Catholic Church has not released a public list of clergy members who have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct or assault. However, over the last year and a half U.S. dioceses and religious orders serving most of the Catholics in the country have released lists of “credibly accused” abusers who have served in their ranks, using their own criteria for whom to include. ProPublica collected these lists to provide a central location to search across all reports. How we did this | Read the story: Catholic Leaders Promised Transparency About Child Abuse. They Haven’t Delivered. ”

            https://projects.propublica.org/credibly-accused/

            1. I have no comment on the subject matter but wouldn’t accept anything said by Pro Publica unless they released the data in context.

              Pro Publica: The founders, the Sandlers, are allies of George Soros. The publication pushes the idea that America is a haven of white racism. They are left wing and believe free-market capitalism is based on greed without any concern for the environment.

              Slate.com has accused Pro Publica of objectionable partisanship rather than news reporting. They wouldn’t even investigate the ACORN voter-registration scandal or Obama’s relationship with Ayers or Wright.

              Many of their stories twisted the villain. Example, the villain China was changed to America.

              We see Pro Publica stories in other news media publications because they encourage other media to republish them saving the other media money while pushing the Pro Publica agenda.

            2. These lists have been floating around for nearly 20 years. BishopAccountability has maintained one.

              A man of 29 showing up and claiming Fr. So and So fondled him 15 years earlier (and I’m not stacking the deck here, that’s the modal type of accusation) doesn’t provide much of an evidentiary base for punishing someone else. People who complain about the bishops (Rod Dreher and Leon Podles to name two) simply ignore this problem. When you add in a guaranteed settlement (as you did in the Canadian boarding school cases), you make the evidentiary base even more unreliable.

            3. Readers will decide for themselves.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica

              “over the last year and a half U.S. dioceses and religious orders serving most of the Catholics in the country have released lists of “credibly accused” abusers who have served in their ranks, using their own criteria for whom to include. ProPublica collected these lists to provide a central location to search across all reports.”

          2. “There were about 150 priests who accounted for about 30% of the accusations. ”

            Source?

            “The number accused of paedophilia was in the three digits.”

            900ish??

            1. I dated a lawyer in the mid-90’s whose sole job was to represent priests accused of pedophilia in San Diego. She was very busy. She then took a job with a firm in Minneapolis representing the Catholic diocese there. One thing she told me that was noteworthy; there were so many cases to handle around the country, that firms were having a difficult time staffing up with experienced lawyers.

              1. No, her job was to represent priests who had been accused of sexually violating youth. The vast bulk of these cases concern pederasty, not paedophilia.

                1. This is absurd x XXii says: “The vast bulk of these cases concern pederasty, not paedophilia.”

                  Call it what you want. These priests were abusing their power and molesting young boys. They should be held to account, as should those who engaged in protecting these priests.

                  1. Those priests who abused minors and who are still alive, are, in fact, being dealt with by secular authorities. I don’t know a single Catholic who has a problem with that. Those convicted are in jail. Many dioceses are paying compensation. In some cases, they have done so on the strength of reports that can no longer be investigated or prosecuted.

                  2. 1. Words have precise meanings.

                    2. They were accused. They should only be ‘held to account’ if their guilt can be demonstrated. There’s a reason few of these men have been subject to prosecution, and it’s not because the bishop has buffaloed the local DA.

                    3. This last point is something that hardly needs to be said in ordinary circumstances.

                  3. the distinction between pedophilia and ephoebophlia is that one type of evil predator abuses children and the other one abuses teenagers. yes they see the clergy as tall grass but Scouting too, and other things like youth coaching of sports.

                    both are bad, generally society and laws recognizes that but makes the penalties worse for abusing children than teenagers. that is fair i think. but both sort of crimes must remain crimes and not be legitimated.

                    but one thing that we have seen and few have cared to admit, is that the gay community in the past has sought to protect men who have seduced teenage boys. Not just the Church, which was bad, but a lot of the gay-lib organizations. This is strange is it not? because the gay lib organizations usually hate the church, but there was something of a strange, twisted overlap of agendas at minimizing certain offenders guilt.

                    Obviously there was a social overlap: some of that gay community included gay priests who were homosexuals engaging in their own perverted versions of zeus and ganymede

                    this is not to diminish girls who were victimized or erase any valid distinctions, but, there is a real and disgusting phenomenon of homosexual men trying to seduce teenagers which is now pretty much swept under the rug and you can’t say that anymore because of “homophobia” …

                    I remember when i was an underage youth, homosexuals at university library exposing themselves; I remember it happening at the train station in chicago, some such locations were notorious. basically they show themselves off in bathrooms to test for possible interest. as the old saying goes, “you dont know unless you ask” and this is their perverse way of asking. Now of course by the time I was older, I was big, and unfriendly, and for some reason the homosexuals lost interest in exposing themselves and would just weasel on out of my way and fast. It turns out that this experience is typical, many of my friends had exactly the same experiences, i am sure probably teeangers still do today, but they are afraid to complain.

                    Now we have the gay lib Obergefell era and if people complain about gays then suddenly they are homophobes. And yet throughout history it was very well understood that homosexual men had a thing for teenage boys and preyed upon them.

                    I find it really remarkable how today articulating these things will “get you in trouble”

                    the gay lobby has protected these epheobophiles and they still do.

                    I am sure there plenty of decent gay men out there who don’t engage in this disgusting practices. For example I had a teacher who was a homosexual and a super teacher and a real gentleman. Now at the time I never realized it but learned later from other people. He was a great client of mine in later life and a friend when I think of gays I know they are not all evil perverts. Now, who knows what the percentage breakdown is. but we know from ancient times that there is a sexual culture of seducing teenage boys among many homosexuals and its disgusting and must be admitted to exist and curtailed in every generation to protect the youth. It’s a real problem just the same as the tendency of some evil men like Weinstein to act that way towards women, running the gamut from seduction to outright rape. Let’s not pretend that there aren’t patterns in human sexual behavior some of which involve a lot of exploitation and aggression. Seems like however it becomes trendy to focus on only one group of miscreants at a time. This is politics.

                    1. The distinction between pederasty and common-and-garden homosexuality is one of taste and prudence. And that’s it.

                      I tend to doubt the gay demimonde ca. 1978 had the clout to protect anyone.

                      As for the bishops, there isn’t much indication they were aware of systematic problems prior to about 1983. You do find some spot cases from the earlier era where a bad priest was shuffled around rather than disciplined in any serious way (the Grammond case in Portland being an example).

                    2. oh, i think that there have been powerful coverups all along

                      at one time (i learned of it in the 90s before it became public) it was a “secret” known by thousands of people in performing arts that NY Met Conductor James Levine was one of these evil boy-targeting homosexuals, and yes it was being covered up way back into the 60s

                      https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/02/590282661/new-details-emerge-in-abuse-allegations-against-conductor-james-levine

                      just one example

                    3. “covered up” by whom, and using what instruments?

                      If none of these youths made a complaint to the authorities, just who is covering up anything?

                      As far as I can tell from cursory reading, none of them said jack until 2016. All of the complaints were at least 30 years after the fact and at least one was nearly 50 years after the fact.

                    4. From what I understand, the vast majority of the complaints made were made to pastors and/or bishops until the rock began to be lifted. Many of the priests accused denied the allegations. As has been noted elsewhere, the statute of limitations had run out in many cases – in others, the cleric accused was dead. This is why I recommend reading the ongoing series of reports by the USCCB.

                    5. absurd you go study it on your own. i will only say that i was informed of this problem in the late 90s and it was clear at the time, many people in the performing arts community there who worked with him personally, understood him to be, “a pedophile. ”

                      moreover, from other sources, I believe he was investigated for alleged crimes by the NYPD in the 70s but they did not bring charges.

                      but read the public information more closely if you want to know. i am not interested in the details at this time. but the following source says that in the 1970s Levine was investigated. the met rejected one accusation as baseless in 1979,

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/arts/music/james-levine-met-opera.html

                    6. absurd you go study it on your own. i will only say that i was informed of this problem in the late 90s and it was clear at the time, many people in the performing arts community there who worked with him personally, understood him to be, “a pedophile. ”

                      The youngest of his accusers was 16 years old at the time of the supposed incident. Stop it.

                2. I misspoke, it was in the mid-1980’s. Did you know her then too? Pederast, not Paedophile? Perhaps she only handled the latter, as she never used the former in our conversations. Or, perhaps the pederast defense, is for lay people, a distinction without a difference.

                  1. It’s not a distinction without a difference. A paedophile approaches prepubescent children. Also, children can be coerced; for adolescent males, that’s much more challenging.

                    What the bulk of these accusations insist is (1) the priest copped a feel or (2) the priest inveigled me to participate in sex acts. Current practice allows these suits to be filed decades after the fact, when the factual dispute is not one you can readily resolve. The diocese settles, in part because juries are shot through with people who assume guilt in these matters. Several have appeared on this thread.

                    1. The distinction without a difference, as I’ve stated, is in regards to how alleged victims and families perceive the seriousness of the alleged abuse. I personally don’t make a distinction based on the age of minor. That being said, every defendant should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Rules of evidence should be rigorously adhered to.

                    2. defining pedophilia versus ephoebophilia
                      pedophilia is aimed at prepubescent children and ephoebophilia aims at pubescent, underage teens

                      they are both evil and wrong and by definition criminal, but in some ways qualitatively different

                      absurd above is using the term pederasty. that is a slightly different thing. i think the more precise term for this distinction is pedophilia: ephoebophilia

                      the late Rev Richard McBrien explained this distinction at the outset of the Church scandal years ago but it was too slight of a difference for most people to bother with.

                      However in the area of law, there are usually different statutes and penalties that govern sex crimes against people from around 12 and younger, versus 13-18, thereabouts., and the relative age of offender and victim matters too usually

                      so for prosecutors and legislators the difference matters ..

                      here is a link to model penal code discussion of sex crimes distinctions if you’re interested in the nuances of that sort of thing.

                      https://jpp.whs.mil/public/docs/03_Topic-Areas/02-Article_120/20140807/03_ProposedRevision_MPC213_Excerpt_201405.pdf

                    3. The distinction without a difference,

                      No, there very much is a difference.

                      I personally don’t make a distinction based on the age of minor.

                      If you fancy the salient distinction is not their sexual function but rather where they land on a conventional statutory boundary, you most certainly are making that distinction.

                3. You mean by pederasty butt-f*cking. Pedophilia, by contrast, is thinking you love him before you do it, right?

                  1. You mean by pederasty butt-f*cking. Pedophilia, by contrast, is thinking you love him before you do it, right?

                    No, I mean acts contra adolescent males v. acts contra prepubescent children. The distinction has been discussed several times in this thread. Reading comprehension. It’s great stuff.

  16. Ah, yes, the Church is not concerned with bodies but souls. Souls saved from permanent pain by perform certain magic — so sorry, religious — rites. (The very rites that forgive pedophile priests.)
    If this is the best that a God can do for representation I would say He is incompetent at picking lawyers.
    My Goddess, good old Mother Nature has shown her power. She is as she is. The nurturer of all life — killer of all life, each and every one.
    Mother nature is the Oracle of Truth. As is the nature of oracles Her answers, though always true, can be misleading. Humanity has developed a method to separate the wheat from the chaff. The priests of this method are known as scientists.
    Don’t give up, Frankie! Chloroquine may save the day. We shall know more as it is used. Your solution may be overkill.

    1. Do you know who brought science to you? It was Catholic priest scientists, among them a Bishop who first wrote the steps to a scientific experiement.

  17. It astounds that serious people actually entertain this make-believe nonsense.

    1. it is not fake nor superstitious to take the issues of wrongdoing, guilt, shame, and repentance seriously

      as i showed in my comments about Chan Buddhism, rituals are also important , even for non-theistic religious sects

      (as aside, many people are not aware that there is a valid thing called non-theistic religion but that’s a different subject)

    1. It’s verrrrry small. It’s so small it’ll toast only a round, very thin waffer.

  19. During the plague, the mortality rate among priests was very high. As an ex-Catholic I think this makes sense. As to the length of prayer, no pain, no gain.

  20. Francis is the best recruiter the SSPX and the Orthodox churches have ever had.

Comments are closed.