Sister Maureen on the actions of Belleville (IL) Bishop Edward Braxton
I received the following opinion piece via email from Sister Maureen Paul Turlish today, 9.30.2008.
* * *
BISHOP EDWARD BRAXTON’S ACTIONS
Bishop Edward K. Braxton would have the people of the Belleville, Illinois diocese accept as fact that the paying a 5 million dollar jury award in the case of the Rev. Raymond Kownacki, a known sexual predator, “would diminish diocesan resources and significantly limit the church’s ability to continue to serve our people, our parishes, (and) our schools,” yet no financial statements have been produced to support the bishop’s claims.
What is known, however, is that the diocese is said to be earning approximately 3.5 million dollars a year in interest from investments. If true, that fact alone would go a long way in weakening the bishop’s arguments.
Like the words of too many bishops, Braxton’s words indicate that there is still a long way to go before the transparency and accountability promised in 2002 becomes a reality.
Not one enabling bishop or church official in the United States has been held accountable for his part in the conspiracy, collusion and cover-up in which unknown numbers of children were put in harm’s way by the perverse actions of thousands of predator priests.
Even in the light of Pope Benedict XVI’s words to do “all that is possible in addressing the scourge that is childhood sexual abuse,” the majority of bishops, together with their State Catholic Conferences, continue to fight tooth and nail against any reformation of arbitrary statutes of limitation.
In refusing to support the complete removal of statutes of limitation, the hierarchy puts all children at risk from predators of any stripe, persuasion or religious affiliation.
Bishops like Edward Braxton, Charles Chaput of Denver, Edwin O’Brien of Baltimore, Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and John McCormack of Manchester, New Hampshire, along with many others, continue to viciously oppose the removal of arbitrary statutes of limitation which give more protection to predators than they do to the very real victims of childhood sexual abuse. Some even refuse to make public the names and present locations of known predators.
Even in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony has resisted producing predator priests’ files and records for many months, in direct defiance of a court order.
Such positions from the spiritual leadership of the Church is hard to reconcile with Jesus’ words from St. Luke 17:2: “It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones.”
More unworthy still is Braxton’s appeal of the Illinois court’s decision on the grounds that the statute of limitation has passed since it comes from one whose first and foremost responsibility is to protect the Lord’s “little ones.”
The institutional church’s loud protestations of commitment to victims of sexual abuse in the present offer neither absolution nor justice for the the sins and crimes of the past.
Justice and charity are what Jesus taught. He never said it was contingent on the price tag. The people of all states and religious persuasions deserve better and our churches should be leading the way, not building barriers that thwart victims’ access to justice.
In Delaware on July 10, 2007 the Child Victims Law was signed. It removed all criminal and civil statutes of limitation regarding the sexual abuse of children and included a two year window for previously time barred cases of abuse by anyone.
W. Francis Malooly, the new bishop of Wilmington, Delaware said during his Installation Mass of September 8, 2008 that, “the innocence of too many…children was stolen by the very individuals whose duty it was to safeguard and protect it.”
If bishops were to follow the words of Delaware’s Bishop Fran which are more reflective of the words of Pope Benedict, perhaps there would be some chance of restoring credibility to the church’s leadership because without that their words are only so much, “sounding brass and tinkling cymbals” (1 Corinthians 13:1-2).
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims’ Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
Sister Maureen is a Delaware resident and educator who has testified before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in support of the Child Victims Law, Delaware’s landmark legislation. She can be reached at maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
55 Responses to “Sister Maureen on the actions of Belleville (IL) Bishop Edward Braxton”
September 30, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Mo (and everyone), it’s pointless to quote their buybull verses at them as if that would hold them accountable for their actions. No one at the top of RCC Inc believes the fairy stories that make up xtian doctrine (except that molesting children makes them more like god so they do it as often as possible). I just heard an interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross with Bill Maher and the director of Religulous. They interviewed for the movie (can’t wait to see it – Bill Maher keeps me sane!) the Chief Latinist of the Vatican. This priest actually copped to not believing in any catholic doctrine and said something to the effect that “people need their stories” (that means you great unwashed sheeple that they’re fleecing and screwing and killing and eating regularly). If this isn’t indicative of the scam and the mindset of the scammers, I don’t know what is.
Be better than the scammers – don’t believe their scam. Don’t be prey.
Mo, you’re a good lady (have read many of your posts) and you fight the good fight, but you’ve got to stop believing the lies the scammers told you! Free yourself from the slavery of being a nun (an institution created to kill uppity women’s spirits by filling them with lies). Reject RCC Inc. for the evil institution that it is.
September 30, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Where wil Braxton come up with the $5 Million Judgment against him?
Lets look at his track record.
Last year he was ablet to get $20,000 to repay what he embezzeled fromtwo restricted charity funds that he used for Vestments and Furniture (oops he got caught, but was not prosecuted or fined or jailed).
Before beinstalled as Bishop, he got private funds to do $250,000 of renovations to his residence.
He approved the building of Saint Clare Church in O’Fallon – $8 million when the parish did not have anywhere near the Diocesean required 50% in pledges to build the facility (only about 30% of the $8 milllion was pledged).
He has closed and sold three churches in East Saint Louis.
Two schools have been closed in Belleville – where did those assets go?
He has made several extended trips to Africa (I am sure he did not fly coach/tourist class).
In 2000, before he took over, ther was a $12 million fund raiser for Diocesean Improvemetns (repairs that were deferred while paying out the $12 million for the Abuse related expenses back around 1993 and 1994).
A percentage of the Weekly Collection from each Parish is sent directly to the Diocease – it use to be 5%, but now it is much higher).
I once read a Humor in Church snippet that read: “I have some good news and some bad news. the Good News is that we have the funds to put a new roof on the church. The bad news is that it is in your pockets”
It is time to check Braxton’s pockets. Maybe then he can realize what the abuse victums/survivors have experienced.
September 30, 2008 at 7:27 pm
As for me, someone who was continually physically abused by nuns over several grammar school grades and who was sexually abused by a nun as a freshman in high school and one who was propositioned by a nun as a sophomore in college, I am very uncomfortable with a nun “leading the way” for sex abuse victims. I am sorry, it is too close to the old saw, ‘the fox in the henhouse’ for me to accept. Sister Maureen may personally be a nice human being who never abused, but the fact that she wears a habit and has taken vows under a bishop place her in the enemy camp as far as I am concerned.
I am sorry Sister, but I cannot warm to you. Your indignation at the bishops may be real, but from an organizational pt of view, you are attempting to be taken as a credible leader in the camp that contains the victims of your colleagues, colleagues who live the life you live, take the vows you took, support he organizational structure that you uphold by staying a nun. I am sorry. You may or may not be a phony, but your status as a non makes you a non-starter for me.
September 30, 2008 at 7:40 pm
But definitely not to the rest of us. Sister Maureen is a beacon in the dark, dark night of the institutional church. Long may she shine!
September 30, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I have a suspiscion that Sister Maureen has a personal agenda here.
September 30, 2008 at 10:04 pm
And you don’t!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
September 30, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Thank you, dear Sister Maureen, for your courage and light.
AW
September 30, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I agree! [hrh] All of us have an agenda….mine is to “set the captives free”…free from the pernicious RCC. I want an end to the RCC. Give all the monies that are in the Vatican Bank, back to the parishoners…they bought and paid for all the churches they are now closing.
October 1, 2008 at 12:05 am
Good for you Sister Maureen. Gloria Sullivan, realistically don’t expect any of your money back from the RCC. The money flows to the Vatican and will never flow back to the people. That is a fact of life. I have written my past donations off but I do not continue to feed the demon.
CER
October 1, 2008 at 2:11 am
I have been reading Sister Maureen’s letters for many years. I’ve read her scathing letters to bishops when they were the only ones carrying the signature of a nun. Letters to the editor exposing the lies of a bishop signed by a nun carried a lot of weight when most of the clergy was drowning in their own silence.
Sister Maureen is a very brave lady. She is Tom Doyle’s counterpart in a habit and risked a great deal to speak out on behalf of all survivors and earned the ire of many a pointed hat. Most of all, she stood up for the truth which sets her apart.
Thomas, nobody can blame you for the way you feel. One of the many things that was taken from you by your abuse was your trust. Some ten years ago, your same words were used to describe Tom Doyle on many occasions by a number of survivors who were abused by priests.
Nobody is asking that you warm to her. She has done a great deal of good and shouldn’t be discouraged from continuing her work.
vinnie
October 1, 2008 at 2:58 am
Justice is never just a personal agenda! It doesn’t matter what ones status is in life or to what organization they belong, they contribute as they might because they understand the pain that they themselves have never known. So, when a nun, or a priest, or a nurse, or a doctor, or a social worker, or anyone else fights for justice…we fight on the same side with very different emotions. Anger is not the best emotion to harbor…it makes us unforgiving…and that is pure hell that does not have to be.
So, some believe that only bad apples are all in the same basket. If that were the case, the Church would never accomplish any good.
A Man Who Lived To Forgive God
October 1, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Thanks for the words. But try and remember all, they are only words.
I simply do not trust this woman. Why? She is a nun. They abused me horribly. Words do not take that away. She is also from my part of the country. As a former seminarian I am familiar with them and their ethos. Trust me, there is another agenda here. And it has more to do with making the bishops look bad than it has to do with helping us survivors survive. When children are sexually abused it is inappropriate for an official of the abusing agency to seek, demand or be given status by the victims. It is insane. It is like an SS Officer claiming to be an advocate for Jews.
I am willing to admit that her intentions are most probably pure. I do not know the woman personally. I will give her the benefit of the doubt. But I am personally offended by her self-righteousness and her seeming unwillingness to see her status as a nun as part of the problem. This whole organizational structure itself is to blame for this…it is an oligarchy of men and women who answer to no one. They are effectively a mafia and they run us all like they are extorting money from us for “protection” only they use the fear of God as an enforcer, not some big guy who has come to break our legs. Come on everyone! Where is your reasoning power?!
Giving this kind of status to a nun or priest in our situation is simply insane. They are the enemy. Period.
October 1, 2008 at 12:57 pm
TMB, I feel ya big-time! Yeah, I’m a survivor of priest sex abuse (attempted sexual assault when I was five, plus sexually motivated emotional and mental abuse in an effort to get my now husband in the priest’s sack in college), but even more than what priests did to me, nuns (and RCC Inc lay teachers) did even more damage, more persistently, more frequently, over more days and years. I was forced to pee myself at my desk on three occasions by my first grade nun, who refused to allow me to use the bathroom after repeated and respectful requests. She then used that pee puddle around my desk to further humiliate me with my peers, rendering permanent impairment of peer-group relations for the next seven years. She then forced me to clean up the puddle *after* school (not when it happened), when it was partially dried and sticky and nearly impossible for a tiny girl to scrub up with paper towels (not allowed to use a janitor’s mop or water). The woman was a total psycho. She was also very into mutilating tiny hands (think of how small a six-year-old’s hands really are) with rulers (I escaped that, fortunately). I came home from school crying nearly every day for seven years of uncertified teachers’ incompetent teaching, classroom lack of control, collective punishments, and bullying (by teachers and classmates). My only normal life came during summer vacation and when I was able to transfer to public school beginning in eighth grade.
My brother had it even worse, having been singled out by his second-grade lay teacher (because he was the weakest and least capable of defending himself boy) for daily humiliations (like throwing erasers at his head), bullying, and abuse, including having the class join in and collectively abuse my brother. She was a man-hater (not a lesbian, a true man-hater) who eventually became a nun and is *still* teaching in Cleveland RCC Inc schools. This led to continual bullying into fifth grade, where he was singled out by another lay teacher; when a kid pulled a knife on him, she rewarded the kid with the knife and blamed my brother for being victimized and punished him. She continued to teach for many years afterward. Ironically, my brother is the only churchgoer in our family. His life turned around when he went to public school, too.
My sister was continually abused by this group of teachers (including other nuns who came along later), mostly because she was related to my brother and me. My sister is a major mess and on a bunch of psych meds as a result – we think there was sexual abuse there, but she isn’t saying.
Only my baby brother escaped abuse at the same school (Ascension in Cleveland, now closed) only because he was a mean and violent little SOB (and I love him for it!) and didn’t hestitate to mouth off and swing back (he narrowly escaped tandem clergy abuse because he had no interest in religion or being an altar boy). I think I fared pretty well because, even though I was outwardly obedient, I was seeing the BS in the system early and rebelled inwardly (studying other religions and actively rejecting what was being shoved down my throat by the time I was ten). Unfortunately I got religion again for about 5 years in late high school/early college (1975-1980), when I got abused in the name of religion *again* (the priest pursuing my now husband, who nearly drove me suicidal with his abuse of what he learned about me and hubby in hubby’s confessions – oh, he didn’t violate the seal of the confessional because he didn’t *reveal* what he knew but he used that info against us both). After that second sojourn into religion, I rejected it once and for all. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me! I, for one, won’t get fooled again.
A friend was severely beaten by a nun because he refused to make his first communion because he found the concept completely disgusting (cannibalism). The memory that stands out for him is how much that nun *enjoyed and got off* on beating him.
I’m with Gloria – RCC Inc can go to its own hell, and I will speak out against it at every opportunity and work to turn as many people away from it as possible (in accordance with free will – not going to use xtian tactics like extortion and threats, just reason and facts). I even wrote to the Cleveland diocese and had my baptism rescinded – something I refer to as my manumission papers freeing me from slavery to RCC Inc. Anyone can do this!
There is a place for personal faith, but not within the institution of RCC Inc. As I’ve said here, the relationship of the shepherd to the sheep is NOT benign – it’s fleece ‘em, screw ‘em (clean version), kill ‘em, eat ‘em. Also, the central myth of xtianity *starts with* the rape of a young girl – how sick is that? Child sexual abuse is a central tenet of xtian belief – if it was ok for god to rape mary, then it’s ok for priests (and others) to rape children.
Encouraging news is that hubby recently talked to his bro about our nephew who is heading for RCC priesthood. Fortunately, my bil is skeptical, too (even though he’s always been a big believer), and is watching carefully and will step in as needed (nephew is 24 now). I never thought he had it in him considering his blind sheeple belief in RCC Inc.
October 1, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Believe Maureen or bishop Braxton ? Silly question —–
Dear Tom Barnes–please get some help.
October 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Get some help with what? My past? I cannot help what happened. I can only deal with it. And accepting a nun as a bona fide advocate for abuse victims at the hands of nuns is ludicrous. That is only common sense. I bear this woman no ill will. I simply don’t want her to claim status among abuse victims. She is in league with the abusers….she is a member of that ’sorority’ if you will. Do you find my position unreasonable? I find YOUR reaction to my reaction incredible !
Try and understand. It is the organizational structure itself that has caused the RCC to be in the forefront of this child abuse mess. These people answer to virtually no one. And NOW I am supposed to accept this nun as a sincere advocate? Perhaps she is. Perhaps her heart is pure. So what? By virtue of her position as a nun, she is disqualified to lead. She belongs to the abuser class. Is this so hard to understand?
October 1, 2008 at 3:44 pm
TMB, I agree that she is a member of the sorority that supports and enables (and often commits) abuse. I think the only way she could gain true credibility with survivors is to *leave* that sorority and perhaps even RCC Inc entirely. That she’s been speaking out and is still able to be a nun is remarkable and questionable, as any and all clergy that have spoken out about clergy sex abuse have been fired, defrocked, etc. Sex abuse by nuns is a deep well that has yet to be plumbed, and I’m sure it’s just as appalling as abuse by priests. There’s a good link on SNAP about it. We traditionally know nuns to be child abusers but think of that as somehow less serious than sex abuse, and it’s really not. I consider nun abuse to have played a much bigger and more pervasive role in my life than priest abuse, even though no nun ever did anything sexual to me (except to falsely teach us that a six-pack of beer and a shrub lead to pregnancy and venereal disease and all the other lies about sex taught by RCC Inc).
Nun orders are responsible for a sizable amount of abuse, from the treatment of Slovak American kids by Notre Dame nuns (racism) to the legendary beatings in schools by most orders, to the Magdalene Laundries (run by the Sisters of Mercy, the order at the highly abusive catholic school I attended), to the horrors at the genocidal/ethnocidal concentration camps called “schools” where Native American kids were warehoused and abused by the sickest of the sick of priests and nuns.
Nuns don’t get off easy with me, not at all. Mo has said all the right words in many posts in response to many articles in many papers, but why has RCC Inc not silenced her? Why is she different? How does she get away with her criticisms while guys like Tom Doyle got sent to the Canary Islands or whatever? Last I heard, the vatican was cracking down on nuns who don’t toe the party line (in any way), so unless I hear a good reason or three to trust her, I’ll always take her words with a grain of salt. That she’s still a believer when most of the hierarchy aren’t tells me that she’s still a slave, a tool of that hierarchy and continues to be used as a front and exploited by them (see, nuns are speaking out, we care, blah, blah…). All the “good” ones are nothing but fronts, like the pizza joints that the Mafia uses to launder money that are run by otherwise honest workers.
October 1, 2008 at 3:58 pm
The issue of trust is one of the most difficult things for any survivor of childhood abuse to overcome. Although I’ve gotten better, it still plagues me, but I’ve gotten to the point where I can sometimes say to myself, “Alright, I know why I am thinking this way; can I or do I want to stop it?”
Living Without Trust
It was abuse that killed my trust.
Coldly murdered to feed another’s lust.
Trust, just five letters, easy to spell,
But living without it, is a living hell.
My mind knows the steps I must take,
But my tongue is paralyzed while I shake.
I inflate my ego with a thundering roar.
Yet to my disgrace, I quiver at the core.
There’s an image I can’t bear to see
It’s the reflection of what’s really me.
Outwardly, I’m in complete control;
Hiding the chaos in my soul.
Keeping it invisible, never known,
What’s inside can never be shown
It’s the scared scarred little me;
The trustless child no one can see.
It was abuse that killed my trust.
Coldly murdered to feed another’s lust.
Living in fear that all will be stolen;
Fear is manifest in my spastic colon.
They’ll take from me everything I’ve got
Along with everything I have not.
Without trust life is a raw deal,
Frayed nerves are hard to conceal,
Going round on this spinning wheel.
Makes it very difficult to heal,
How can you live not trusting a soul?
What is the patch that fills this hole?
Love is hell, it’s quite unbearable.
If only my soul, my soul were repairable!
Love was meant to be something dear.
My love I can’t trust, so I live in fear.
All my jealousy gives way to hate.
Living without trust this is my fate.
It was abuse that killed my trust.
Coldly murdered to feed another’s lust.
All the time feeling screwed
One wrong word and I’m unglued
Do unto others before they do unto you.
This is my truth, what am I to do?
Fear is the word, managing my life,
Tortures me with endless strife.
Did my perp know my fate?
Would he care knowing my hate?
So I live in lonely isolation
Surrounded by my desolation
Crying, dying to get connected
Knowing beforehand I’ll be rejected.
They look at me and wonder why.
How many times have I made them cry?
All they wanted was to give me love,
But without trust, I could only shove.
It was abuse that killed my trust.
Coldly murdered to feed another’s lust.
In despair I ask, “What’s the use?”
Can’t tell anyone of my abuse
I can never let another near
Getting close, ignites up my fear.
I’m safely insulated in my tomb
Better to have never left the womb
Then to go through life devoid of trust
Like fine wrought iron covered with rust.
So I keep praying for the day
I’ll let loose in some unconnected way
And while going hog-ass wild
I’ll release my inner child.
Somewhere I will find what I must
To start a relationship built on trust.
And I’ll never know unless I try.
I pray I will succeed before I die!
By Vinnie Nauheimer Copyright © 2003, All rights reserved
October 1, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I am sorry I am going to have to agree with Thomas Michael Barnes on this one.
Deanna Leonti
October 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The whole philosophy of the priesthood/nuns is ludicrous and is inbred for how many years?
Level it!!!!!
nice poem btw vinnie…
deanna
October 1, 2008 at 4:26 pm
This comment is in response to comments criticizing Sister Maureen Paul Turlish.
The bible says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” When Al Smith, a New York Democrat, ran as president in 1928 he said, “let’s look at the record.” I maintain that by both of these yardsticks, Sister Maureen passes with flying colors.
Maureen was an active member of the team that advocated for windows legislation in Delaware. The team fought the good fight and they won! We are now in the second year of a 2-year window in Delaware. Now survivors and victims in Delaware can file civil lawsuits to fight for justice within the U.S. court system
I don’t know Maureen well. I have met her only twice: in July 2007 and July 2008, at SNAP conventions in Washington, D.C., and Chicago, respectively. I do know Maureen is getting heat from her superiors because of her activism. Yet she soldiers on. I don’t know why her superiors or the Vatican have not come down hard on her. I do know she’s not ordained; she’s not a priest or deacon. She’s a lay person, just like me and most of you. She’s one of us.
I do know that many brave nuns have been in the vanguard in many progressive fights within the Church (e.g., women’s rights). I do know that Maureen’s advocacy is genuine. Trust me; this lady is the real deal. Why she chooses to remain a nun is her business. All I know is that I consider Sister Maureen a fellow comrade in arms in the fight for compassion and justice for victims.
October 1, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I do not.
October 1, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Judaism root of Catholicism
In Judaism single men are not to be trusted
now why is that?
they believe that a man and a woman coupled is sacred……
Where did Catholicism go wrong?
celbacy & chaste
it goes against “man’s” nature & what he/she was created for in
being apart of the Divine Plan in which were created to do!
Deanna
ps my uncle got the **** kiched out of him by a priest whom hated his brother (my other uncle) because he beat the church in a crap game that was a fundraiser. the priest wanted my uncle to give the money back, and my uncle wouldn’t…and took it out on his little brother. (Our Lady of Mt. Carmel East Clevel., Oh)
then this other priest stood my Mother up in front of her 6th grade class and told the entire class to grow up and be good citizen’s not like my Mother’s brother who was “jail bird”!
when my Grandmother went up to the rectory after seeing my beaten uncle she wanted to kill the priest but he hid from her, and she put het fist through the door…..
my Grandmother kind of worked for her education ( bask in the day at Villa Angela Clevel., Oh) helping nuns when she was younger…
not to mention a nun clawed my Mother’s face, only for my Mother to pass the same clawing on my face years later!
the inbreeding is there…and continuing on whether you can see it now or later!
Deanna Leonti
October 1, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Just to set the record straight here. Sister Maureen is probably a genuine person, a good human being and a devoted nun. This is not a personal attack against her, I don’t know her. I am willing to grant that she wants to do good. But there are bigger issues here.
She cannot claim a leadership position among victims for the same reason that a Democratic Senator cannot run for office as a Republican candidate for Governor. She is in the wrong camp. I would have to be a fool to trust her as an advocate for victims while she is wearing a habit. It is counter intuitive and denies common sense. She probably means well and has good intentions. I am not judging her intent or her works. I am simply saying that she is in the wrong camp and therefore cannot credibly claim leadership in the Survivor Camp.
For the record, my best friend from childhood who was the best man at my wedding is a Catholic priest. He is presently the master of novices for his Order. We speak all the time. He is still a good friend. He has never abused any child. But that is off the point. I do not accept him as a credible advocate for sexual abuse victims any more than I accept Sister Maureen. It is a matter of conflict of interest. It is the same idea behind judges recusing themselves from a case if they have any interest whatsoever in any or all of the parties involved. Sister Maureen is not a credible advocate because of her vocation.
Again, to set the record straight, obviously some of you know this woman. You obviously have affection for her. I respect that. My only point here is that one cannot BE the system and rail AGAINST the system at the same time. It stretches credulity to think anyone could throw in with her in any real way, regardless of her intentions or her many works for victims. If my brother abused your child and I showed up at your house asking to represent your child in court, what would your reaction be toward me? See? That is all I am saying. In that case, I would not be a credible advocate for your child. The same applies here.
October 1, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I have been talking to friend who was abused by a priest in Ireland, These are his words i do not trust any one in the Catholic faith, His reason every one who pays money into the church with out it being accountable, Are supporting the on going cover up and helping to keep in jobs those who covered up, And dont forget the Popes sorry was a con, He also forgot to mention he insulted those ladies who were in the Magdalene Laundries, This was before he became Pope, He called them liars after the film the Magdalene Sisters came out,
October 1, 2008 at 5:59 pm
My graduate degrees are in Education, Human Resources Management and Human Performace Systems. My last job before retirement was as the Employee Development Specialist in the Office of Human Resources at the Smithsonian Inst. in Washington D.C. I helped place people into position within one of the 26 or so S.I. units (museums, research centers, etc.) and then offered employee training in leadership and development once they were placed. My basic job was to see who was in what position within the organization and how could I make them more effective, thus getting more bang for the buck for the Institution. The entire thing revolved around the organizations mission statement and vision statement and the individual’s place within the organization.
I approach the Sex Abuse Crisis in the churches the same way. This is an organizational problem from my pt. of view. The clergy (that includes nuns and lay brothers) are in an organizational niche where they are virtually unaccountable to almost anyone but the bishop/Religious Superior. They have power over individuals (especially children) that borders on something from the Middle Ages. Even today, considerable child abuse goes on in the name of ‘good order and discipline’. I really have little faith in the sheeple within the various parishes. They are as clueless as my own parents were….and they want to be that way. It is easier.
The RCC takes the hit more than the other churches (in my view) because it has a huge school system that the other churches do not have. Therefore, they are an easy target but by no means are they the only church that abuses children. I am beginning to think that abusing people is part of the mindest of the religionist. If most of one’s efforts go into pleasing some amorphous, unkown, unseen “GOD” that is written about in books that are thousands of years old and believed by the sheeple to be the word of “GOD” then of course any specific incident of child abuse is something to be overlooked, minimized or generally disregarded as soon as it is convenient to do so.
Do you really think it was any different in the ancient temples of Apollo or Mithras or in the Temple at Jerusalem? Do you think that there was no child abuse among the acolytes in the ancient temples of Israel, Egypt, Asia Minor or Persia? Of course not! This is not a ‘Catholic’ problem, this is an organizational problem that involves the sheeple giving too much power to too few people for too many years with too few safeguards. This is not faith. This is intellectual and sociological laziness in the name of a religionist mindset. Simply put, people want religion to be “practiced” upon them generally. To actually “practice” a religion takes too much work. Therefore you have priesthoods….of all varieties….and their job has always been the same in all religions in all ages…their job is to control the Gods with magic rites, incantations and “sacraments”. I place nuns and lay brothers loosely in the same category with priests and bishops here.
When any group gets almost unlimited power over children they abuse them. That is a universal truth in my mind. The entire organizational structure of the RCC must change radically and the bill payers (the sheeple) must take immediate control if there is going to be any change at all. Sister Maureen is part of the problem, not the solution. That is because she is part of the very same structure that supports this madness, whether she knows it or not.
That is why I am having a hard time seeing her as a leader in the victim’s camp. This is not personal, it is organizational.
October 1, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Frank said:
“I do know she’s not ordained; she’s not a priest or deacon. She’s a lay person, just like me and most of you. She’s one of us.”
Well, is she a nun or is she a lay person? She’s either one or the other. The definition of a lay person is anyone who is not a priest, deacon, brother, monk, or nun. Lay people are the sheeple who don’t have titles, the people who are there to be abused by those with titles – titles granted or witheld by RCC Inc. It’s repugnant that those with titles hold titles reflecting the roles of people in a family (mother, father, sister, brother) when they are none of these things in reality to any lay person (except those to whom they are related by blood/birth), but it’s part of the brainwashing that these are people to be trusted because they have familial authority over you. Note that I call her Mo, not “sister”. I also refuse to call any priest “father” – none of them qualify for that title. If my nephew becomes a priest, it will be the height of perversion to expect me to call him “father” when he’s my nephew and 26 years younger than me – no amount of alphabet soup after his name will eliminate the perversion of referring to him as anyone’s father until he actually contributes DNA to make a baby.
I’m still backing TMB on this one – she may have a good record, but she’s still a tool of the system until she takes off the habit and stops calling herself a nun or “sister”. She will always have a conflict of interest until she does so.
Tom Doyle is no longer a priest, but he’s still referred to as such. Why doesn’t he reject that title? why is he not an EX-priest? If he thinks he’s “always a priest”, then he’s still adhering to RCC Inc doctrine/BS regarding ordination (meaningless in the real world) and is still a tool of the system. Same with all the people who have been clergy who have spoken out – I’m just using Tom as an additional and well-known example. If I can be an EX-catholic by my own proclamation (thereby reclaiming power over myself from RCC Inc), then a former priest can be an EX-priest simply by declaring himself so or nun an EX-nun by declaring herself so. We do have the power to EX ourselves out of RCC Inc.
Some of these folks that come from the system of perversion that is RCC Inc have earned more of our trust and respect than others, but until they shed the titles, and dogma and doctrine associated with bearing such titles, they will still be a tool of that system because they still buy into it, in whole or in part.
I didn’t hear about benny ratsoboy calling the Laundry survivors liars. How typical. And just how does he think they ended up in those laundries? Or are they, like all women who challenge RCC Inc authority, “lying w$hores” and “tempted by evil” and other epithets used by RCC Inc against women for two millenia?
Yes, anyone who contributes, believes, attends in any way is an enabler of abuse and accountable as abusers (yes, even my own parents are culpable for their role in the abuse of their children by minions of RCC Inc, even though they acted out of ignorance and blind obedience – and yes, I do love them – their “punishment” is to see their children reject their god; to their credit, their involvement in catholicism has dwindled to a barest minimum, mostly due to old age). Their karma will run over their dogma eventually.
(BTW, I use “RCC Inc” as an analogy to “Murder Inc” (i.e., the Mafia) because it is an organized criminal child rape cult and is guilty of organized soul murder.)
October 1, 2008 at 6:28 pm
TMB, what you said! And way better than I ever could!
BTW, according to the central myth of xtianity (or RCC folklore), Mary was “given” to the Temple as a servant/”vestal” virgin/whatever prior to her rape by Yahweh. She was *already* within a clergy system at the time of her rape.
With our modern sensibilities, we’d like to think that this was a “good” job that preserved her virtue, but essentially she was a temple prostitute in training, as were most girls “given” to temples of any belief in that region of the world at that time in history, whether Pagan or abramic. Feminist theory says that the young women in Pagan temples represented the Goddess and bestowed the blessings of the Goddess to men with their bodies and were there of their own free will, but I think the feminist historians live in a matriarchal cloud when that world was (and is) a harsh patriarchy all along (and I’m a feminist myself). Temple boys and girls were always used by the priesthoods for sex – that was their purpose for being there, not to be in “apprenticeships” for clergy jobs (most probably never made it to that point).
October 1, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Well it is PROBABLY true that Mary was a colomb (from the Egyptian word for ‘dove’) or Temple Virgin. Her father was a Levite and Temple Priest, so that would have been expected of her. All the ancient temples had ‘virgins’ which essentially meant children. They assisted the priesthood but to be fair, I am not sure that we really understand what their roles actually were. Maybe sex was involved, maybe not. I am not sure that we have a clear picture of the virgins that assisted the priesthood in Jerusalem Temple relative to that point.
Also, to be fair, you must understand that the ancient view of sex is not the modern view in any way. Jesus Himself was against sex with a child (“…it is better that a milstone be tied around his neck and he be thrown into the sea…..”) but to be VERY fair, one does not have to look very closely at the Gospels to see all the men that Jesus loved (Lazarus, John the Apostle, a “young man” in the Gospel of Thomas, and of course, the young man who escaped from the Garden when Jesus was arrested wearing only a linen gown (i.e. nightgown). He also loved the Magdalene, Martha and her sister Mary and perhaps other women. He was clearly full of charisma and literally had people falling all over him. Does this remind you of certain Hollywood personalities? I leave it up to you to judge why all of these people are mentioned as intimates of Jesus. That is a matter of Faith, not speculation. But as for me, I come down on the very human side of the equation. I think Jesus had many, many people interested in him personally. The Gospels seem to make that quite clear.
All that I am saying is that it would be a grave mistake to confuse modern sexual mores and values with those of Second Temple Judaism or in Galilee two thousand years ago. They are not the same on many levels. But it IS clear that Jesus was vehemently opposed to an adult having sex with a child. He advocated drowning the abuser. That is pretty strong stuff.
October 1, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I still agree with you TMB and cleveland girl
anyway you want to slice & dice it the bottom line is;
it is still a distorted & perverted “inbred” philosophy that continues on w/i any religious sect especially the with in catholicism.
question:
” do the Jews still dedicate virgins to the temple with hopes one of them will bare the coming Messiah?”.
Deanna
October 1, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Assuming he existed at all! He’s just the imaginary friend of many, many deluded people. We can talk about what “he said” (or the folklore/mythology/doctrine about “Mary”), but we don’t know because the buybull was created specifically as a tool to control the sheeple. It would be *nice* to think that a guy named Jesus condemned sex with children, but we don’t *know*. It’s obvious that the hierarchy of RCC Inc don’t believe that pedos should be drowned or deserve any other punishment of any kind, so it’s probably all a load of BS anyway. What’s interesting is that in order to condemn a practice, it has to have existed, perhaps rampantly. As abramists historically treated children, especially girls, as property/slaves to be disposed of as they wished, it is not a stretch to figure that girl children especially were given away by fathers into various forms of slavery, including religious/sexual slavery.
We can know from independent sources something of what temple life would have been like for children in that time period. I don’t think that there was any moral superiority to an abramic temple over a Pagan one – they would all have been pretty much the same. Whether sex was an official part of a child’s duties doesn’t matter – there would have been exploiters with pedophilic tendencies gaming the systems pretty thoroughly, which is what pedos do. Add to that that barely pubescent girls were given in marriage and you have a culture in which pedophilia would have been the norm, not the exception. Perhaps ephebophilia would be a more fair term (pubescent children). Marriage of much older men to very young barely women goes on to this day in the Middle East among all abramists (xtians, too).
I attended a Melkite church while in college (the priest who wanted my now-husband was/is Lebanese, got arrested in OH for picking up child prostitutes, was caught by the eparchy at least one more time molesting children, and he now lives at a shelter for runaway teenage boys/youth hostel in Manhattan run by another Melkite priest of Irish origin who did time in federal prison for laundering money from an IRA-related robbery), but the sleazy priest aside, most of the men of Levant (Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian) background at this small church were married to much younger women, barely legal by our standards if at all. Only the more Americanized men born here were married to women of legal marriagable age. Thirty years later, I’m sure this has changed to some degree. Abramist men from the Middle East treat women as barely human, as son-making machines, as property under complete male control (and to be fair, “Anglo” abramists do the same to varying degrees). No prejudice against Middle Easterners (I liked most of the people at that church, but then, it was at a time when I was religious – hubby and I are not of Middle Eastern background), just against abramism. Sexism and misogyny are inherent properties of the abramic system at its roots and as difficult to weed out as fungus.
October 1, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I have a correction about the clawing of face.
My Mom took a beating by her father who didn’t believe that my unlcle who got his face clawed by a nun.
on the other occasion it was
Msr. William O’Donnel (Our Lady of MT. Carmel East)who was the one who beat the crap out of my uncle because of the other uncle beating the church at craps!
amazing isn’t or just coincidental?
October 2, 2008 at 2:49 am
I would have to ask where does her Loyalty lie? in reference to TMB answer .
(THB you were a seminarian)
my guess is that she might be advocating because she feels “her God” is calling her to do this, in other words plain and simple “she is suffering for “a” victim here if not all of them. This is how they think, and you know it.
That is why she is still in her order, and why some of the hierarchy listen to her….not because she was or is directly first hand of abuse, but from their standpoint a third party of abuse…….
so in other words plain and simple no-one really knows who the “first” is in the causing sexaul or physical abuse, no-one will admit they are wrong for a crime that they commmitted..aka “the Devil made me do it” the devil might be the victim causing the religious to fall from grace.
I do not agree with their thinking therefore I think this how system is based upon on a false sense for security & should be LEVELED!
Inbreeding Through the Church for years back to the Council of ELVIRA!
now do you get it.
Deanna
October 2, 2008 at 4:47 am
The past is dead. What exactly does all of this communication have to do with Bishop Braxton of Belleville and how it is that he should be fair in the settlement of the abusers of innocent underaged children in the Diocese of Belleville, Illinois? It mainly appears in this senario that the messenger has been mortally wounded because she reminded people that she is a member of the Church as well as a nun, and since some of us have had bad experiences with nuns in the past…it makes them all bad? Isn’t that being judgemental and unfair? Helpful persons do just that…they try to be helpful…and, sometimes, the only thing that they have to work with is the self—so, that is what they give away!
In St. Louis, a nun was recently excommunicated because of her belief in the opportunity of women. Two of her friends and associates became Roman Catholic Womenpriests and she attended this ordination and celebration. So yes, women and men suffer for their beliefs and at the hands of the Church. This too is sbuse. So, no matter how we are abused…if we allow ourselves to become abusive, how is it that we are any better than the abuser? Anyway, your anger still shows…unload it, get rid of it and be surprised at how much better you would feel!
Secondly, if you believe that the Church needs to stop abusing and threatening people for their beliefs outside of the practice of their religion, comment and sign the petition for Sister of Charity Sister Louise Lears. Tap on the word petition in the body of the report under ARCHBISHOP BURKE’S FINAL ACT OF VENGEANCE. Yeah, she is a nun…so what? They are not all the same…and we can’t generalize—not even with the clergy or hierarchy in the church.
The Agenda—–if you were ever abused, you know what it feels like…you have already declared it in so many words…I too know what it is like to come through dark times. Fight against injustice, and you don’t have to give up your faith or your religion, or your Church to do so!
October 2, 2008 at 9:36 am
yes, I also agree w/you thomas,
” the past is dead “and yet how is it that the same scenarios keep resurrecting with in this “Catholic” organization/institution?….is it a coincidence? or is it an incurable theological/philosophical disease of some sort that continues generation after generation with in this “faith bound” ties are lies.
If one chooses not to continue to practice “religion” as how the RCC aka “institution” set up the criteria for it doesn’t mean necessarily that one is giving up “their” God.
Faith is giving freely by the one who bestows the gift to the individual, not by any institution.
my example may not be considered proof that there is a God however I am going to give an example of a intuitive “feeling”.
How does a newborn infant know that its Mother is holding them?
they can’t see them at first, but the have an intuition that they are being held by the one who bore them.
long before they are taught any religion, or anything at all.
How can we say that the RCC is the only religion that beholds God’s entirety?
we can’t…
Faith is “belief without proof,” a product of desire. It expresses what one wishes to be true, not what is actually true.
* Knowledge is based on information and evidence.
* Knowledge is a better basis for belief since only knowledge can point to what is actually real.
* The first of the Ten Commandments is to know that there is a God. Judaism tells us that our intellect should direct our emotions. When emotions lead the mind, we’re in dangerous territory.
{me, I kind of disagree with this one, I believe that emotions can be used positively.
if it is used or directed in a way to make things better in the future.{
(example; “a victim of abuse”
, those emotions that were felt from such acts against of an individual can be used in an positive effect directed towards setting a truth free, in-which one’s “free will” will give them the opportunity to choose that self expression. and also a healing aid).
* To base a decision on knowledge requires sufficient evidence, that is, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Ignoring the more reasonable option in favor of the less sensible alternative is a decision based on faith, not knowledge.
as far as this piece of info…with all of the “evidence” that is proven with the Church’s scandal my reason tells me
their criteria is not the basis or support of my beliefs anymore.
The religious “of” the church have set it up that way….
as long as they are taught distorted truth about sex, women, and sin they breed the same clone in new enlisted clergy/nun members aka religious vocations.
same reason being why the US wants to level all behind terrorism because the” philosophy of hatred” is bestow in their young and the saga aka “incurable resurrection” will continue on if the root of the tree isn’t chopped down and killed.
the church is never going to reform, so why try? the problem is a the root!
Have any of you read:
“Blessed Among Women?”
by Arnold Michael
or
“The Cannibal’s Wife”
both books are excellent, I am almost finished with The Cannibal’s Wife”
Deanna Leonti
October 2, 2008 at 10:10 am
thomas,
historical evidence shows man has always had a devotion to a deity whether what his imagination led him to believe what this deity would look like is another ?
long before Jesus, or torah, Buddah etc
October 2, 2008 at 10:27 am
You are right. I WAS a seminarian. I left the Church and the seminary on Oct 31, 1972. I have not been back. Now do YOU get it? I did the proper thing. I left the church when I realized I could never be a part of it. I did not equivocate. I paid a high price for what I did. I lost a family of origin. But I remained true to my view of God and what the church IS and what it is NOT. Can I say the same for Sr. Maureen or “Father” Tom Doyle or “Father” Greeley? The answer is no. They have chosen to equivocate. They have chosen to straddle the fence. They have chosen to have it both ways. This is not admirable or something to be raised up as proper conduct for a reformer. Their decision is to make no decision. This is leadership?
You cannot have it both ways. You are in or you are out. There is no in-between. As for Thomas’ quesion, what does this have to do with Bishop Braxton? Nothing. And everything. Sister Maureen was brought forward as an example of leadership against various bishop’s ineptitude and avarice, if not downright arrogant sinfulness. She is not. I am going to state this plainly. She is using the abuse crisis against children as a personal campaign of vendetta against episcopal authority. Her anger has very little to do with protecting abused Catholic children and much more to do with making the score even against the bishops who she sees as male overlords in a strictly hierarchical and male dominant organization. She is right. I don’t argue with her. But she is not being honest. She is using us in order to wage a personal war against the episcopacy. Her anger stems much more from radical feminism than it stems from trying to set things right for us. And I resent being used.
October 2, 2008 at 4:41 pm
maybe they choose to be undecided until there is more evidence for them to tip the scale of loyalty in one or the other direction?
here is a line from
“The Cannibal’s Wife” A Memoir (Yvonne Maes)
by Bonita Slunder.
pg. 208 “Someone had once said that if your conscience leads you out of the Church then that is what you must do”.
ps did you see any part of the Mafia story on TV last night?
they talked about when they become a member of the group (Mafia) they are sworn to a loyalty much like religious orders….
October 2, 2008 at 5:16 pm
TMB
The ones sitting on the fence do not want to give up their magical gifts aka (gifts of graces)
couldn’t be that these types of magical/grace gifts give power to the one who bestow the magic over others who do not posess the magic/grace…
people were stoned and burned back in the day for less magicall actions
ever wonder if the majority believed all that rcc teaches is wrong could they still keep their magical/grace gifts that they are holding loyalty too? aka….power over man..
no different than sorcery.
October 2, 2008 at 8:22 pm
One might have to ask this question. If someone (Sr. Maureen) chooses to take up another’s cause (Survivors), is it just to ask that person to give up what is important to them? Can’t the help be appreciated for what it is, help and the person thanked for it rather than asked to conform to someone else’s ideals?
Has it ever occurred to anyone that a large part of the influence that Sister wields is due to the fact that she is a nun? Without the title, she would be just someone else complaining about the way the church does business. With the title, people stand up and take note by virtue of the fact she is a nun criticizing the way the bishops do business. Sister Maureen has the same right to choose her beliefs as we have.
Just a thought or two.
October 2, 2008 at 8:49 pm
She has the right to choose her beliefs. She has no right to represent me unless I give her that right. I will not.
October 2, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Try and understand that the Conference of Women’s Religious leadership have been just as evasive, just as irresponsible, just as illigitimate in their response to victims of sexual abuse at the hands of nuns as the bishops have been at the hands of priests. The nun abuse aspect of this sordid affair gets little play in the press, but believe me, as one who has suffered under them for years, it is just as real and just as damaging as being sodomized by a priest.
Sister Maureen probably means well. I don’t want to judge her. I just cannot accept her as a bona fide part of the leadership aspect of protecting Catholic Children from sex abuse. Her sister nuns (no pun intended) have perhaps beaten and maybe even sexually abused hundreds of times more children than priests ever did….just due to the fact that the nuns had access to hundreds of children. Most priests did not.
I am not judging Sister Maureen for her behavior on our behalf. I am judging her on the company she keeps. They are not friendly to us in any way. They have their own agenda and they use us to further it. In her case, I suspect that she has an ultra-feminist agenda against the bishops and we are a convenient avenue of approach for her to beat the bishops over the head on occasion. I do not believe in my heart that she (OR “Father” Tom Doyle OR “Father” Greeley) truly have our interests at heart. They are evening up the score for things that are personal to them in their own careers.
I am a former seminarian. My best friend from childhood is a Catholic priest. I have a couple of acquaintances who are nuns that I like. These are good people BUT they are not in any way credible advocates for us. They are in the enemy camp when it comes to this issue. They have too much to protect to ever be transparent relative to protecting Catholic Children from sexual abuse. Priest and nun retirement plans and hopes and dreams are at stake here. My best friend in all the world is a priest and master of novices for his Order. We have known each other since we were ten years old, we are now fifty five. We went to the same Catholic high school and the same Catholic college out of state. He was the best man at my wedding. I do not trust him on this issue. He has too much to lose if he is transparent, if only it is prestige and a crumbling faith in his accepted core value system.
Sister Maureen is NOT and never can be a credible leader in this fight for Catholic Children based on the company she keeps.
October 3, 2008 at 2:28 am
And how would another Thomas judge Jesus Christ for the company that he kept? Would you always be suspicious and doubting? It is the nature of the beast, you know…to be named after an Apostle who was given a bum rap—one of faith, but not so strong…but still faithful in his own way!
October 3, 2008 at 6:23 am
#1 “Jesus is perfect” NO other human was or is considered perfect from what RC teaches
#2 it would be like if Jesus were to be an advocate for the “Sanhedrin” while living among the poor.
#3 giving her credibility over the victims voices is still alienating the victim.
why is that we are to take their words for truth, and yet there needs to be an advocate to speak for the victims behalf?
don’t get me wrong if you like her and she does well for you than that is your prerogative, and if she wants to continue with what she is doing than that’s her prerogative…
take for example what happened to Oliver North. his own people didn’t believe him and his expertise on terrorism, now look at what is happening years later.
its like oil and water, it doesn’t mix.
is the scale tipping more towards the victims or more towards the religious orders in which she is vowed/oath to?.
i do not know i was taught birds of a feather flock together, and also was judged on it.
deanna
October 3, 2008 at 8:48 am
My best regards to Sister Maureen. If she is genuine in what she is doing, I wish her the best. If she is not, she will be outed. That is not for me to judge. I simply state that from a Business Management pt of view, she must not be seen as a leader among the very group of people that her ilk has abused. (That would be us.) This is only common sense and basic business management strategy.
Do you think that the American Indian has asked descendants of George Custer’s family to represent them in any P.R. campaign? Have the local chapters of B’Nai Brith asked the American Nazi Party to help them in their quest to make sure America stays anti-Semitic as much as possible? Do African-Americans see the Ku Klux Klan as an ally on any issue? Think about what you are saying! You are giving a leadership position and huge credibility to someone who is solidly in the opposing camp.
This behavior of abuse victims is not only counter inuitive, it is insane ! I have no ill will towards this woman and I am more than ready to give her credit for what she has done for us (which is basically beat up on the bishops at every opportunity). But I WAS a seminarian…I KNOW how they operate from personal experience. Trust me. This has more to do with her getting even and settling old scores than it has to do with advocating for us. And frankly that goes for ANY priest, nun, brother or current Religious of any ilk that is ‘advocating’ for us. They are NOT advocating for us. They are using us and our issue to get at the hierarchy for personal reasons. That is fine. Let them do it. But I will NOT allow them to be seen as credible leaders when I know better.
God bless Sister Maureen. I wish her the best. I just don’t buy into this hero worship of her or Tom Doyle or Greeley or any of the other clerical “leaders” that are supposedly advocating for us. Unfortunately, I know better.
October 3, 2008 at 10:58 am
Bottom line. If we sexual and physical abuse victims at the hands of Catholic clergy (or ANY church people for that matter) are still waiting in line to be led out of the darkness by church officials of ANY type…..then we have learned absolutely nothing from our pain.
We don’t need to hate them, in fact, we should NOT hate them, that is not Christian. But we also should not follow them; following them is not sane considering our collective experiences with them. I am not asking anyone to close their heart to their private Faith walk with their God, I am only asking fellow victims of sexual abuse at the hands of church people to be smart. No one who is reasonable goes back to the potential enemy when he/she offers an olive branch in one hand while still holding the means to stab you in the neck in the other hand.
Please everyone, use your head. Too much reliance on our hearts is what got a lot of us into this mess. We did not want to “tell on Sister/Father/Brother” when they abused us. We don’t need to be heartless on this issue but we must never be headless again.
October 3, 2008 at 11:15 am
TMB,
I agree with you.
I wasn’t in a seminary, nor a convent but came close and close was Enough for me!
October 3, 2008 at 11:33 am
TMB,
the mob is said to keep their friends close and their enemies closer, maybe that’s what happening with her and other members who do the advocating yet still belong to the RC Regime?.
as far as Tom Doyle, he said at the conference in Chicago ‘08 not to call him Fr., and by RC rules technically he is still considered a priest (even though he may not be a practicing priest) they all are for life.
So maybe his title helps in the courts when he is advocating for a victim.
priests are priests for life by RC rules unless defrocked, but not the nuns i guess?
go figure.
October 3, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Believe it or not, my mother is an Italian American and her father owned a bar in Philadelphia and was a ward leader in that city for almost thirty years. I know inner city politics and I know the Philly mob with more than just a passing knowledge. They are rutheless, subhumans who would rape their mother for a buck. Oddly enough, my mother was so devout a Catholic I can only call her a professional Catholic. This sex abuse crisis has only made her blame the victims. The Church is her life…..’we must have brought it on ourselves’ is her unspoken mantra. To think something bad of a priest or nun is unthinkable in her mind.
Assigning mob mentality to the bishops is, in my personal experience, EXACTLY correct. They act exactly like dons and capos. Exactly. Even Governor Keating said exactly this same thing when he left the originally appointed Review Board that the Catholic Conference of Bishops set up after the scandal broke in Boston. Claiming that the bishops act with a mob mentality is so completely accurate it is truly chilling.
October 3, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Deanna, if you believe that a priest is a priest for life, then you are giving credence to RCC Inc dogma about this. If Tom Doyle has proclaimed himself an EX-priest as you say, then he is no longer a priest and should not be accorded any titles or special respect that RCC Inc expects everyone to give to their priests.
If you don’t believe in RCC Inc or its beliefs/dogma/doctrine, then you should also not believe in or follow its rules. Let’s have some consistency here!
TMB, thank you for all of your posts here. You are speaking a lot of good sense that I don’t always see out of survivors. I especially like your organizational perspective. (And, YES, nuns have been as much of a problem if not more so as the priests, and the Conference of Women Religious has yet to be held accountable and has behaved identically to its male counterpart through all of this.) Most survivors have some level of Stockholm Syndrome and really need to reject out of hand everything to do with RCC Inc, *especially* seeing the priests and nuns as having any kind of authority over them personally or in society in general. They should be saying “Begone – you have no power here!” Instead, they still accord respect to these people and give them authority over them.
I reject anything and everything to do with catholicim – beliefs, dogma, doctrine, the buybull, the authority structure – the *whole* thing. In that I am entirely consistent. I no longer look for TAHIC of RCC Inc, the organized criminal rape cult, to EVER “do the right thing”. They will *NEVER* apologize, uncover, be open, or accept responsibility for their actions – my recent following of abuse news has proven that to me to my satisfaction. All I do now is root for those litigating against RCC Inc in further uncovering the evil that exists, exposing it so that more and more people will stop buying the lies and leave RCC Inc and that fewer and fewer new people will begin believing the lies. IOW, I root for full exposure and destruction of credibility. The more RCC Inc doesn’t change, the more it proves itself to be exactly what it really is, and the more people leave, scoff, and disrespect it.
I think the feminist groups internal to RCC Inc are barking up the wrong tree and need to just Reject and Leave. As a feminist, that is exactly what I did years ago (nearly 10 years before the memory of the 1964 assault surfaced spontaneously in my memory – no counseling, no “recovered memories”, it just happened) because I was thoroughly disgusted by the misogyny of the system. To expect that misogyny to go away via the activities of Womenpriests and other groups is mentally unhealthy to say the least – misogyny is the gas that fuels the engine of RCC Inc. Without misogyny, RCC Inc would have to ditch most of its dogma and doctrine, as Original Sin(tm), the disease they claim we all have, originated with Eve, a woman. Destroy the credibility of Genesis, destroy the blame on Eve (and Lilith) for all evil, destroy the doctrine that women pass on Original Sin via childbirth (men have nothing to do with it but catch it from their mothers), destroy the hatred of women by the clergy, and you destroy the entire house of cards. Xtianity wouldn’t be xtianity without misogyny, without blaming Eve for the beginning of evil, without the acceptance of a god raping a pubescent girl to give birth to himself so he could take away the evil he himself bestowed via all women. Abramism wouldn’t exist without the daily prayer “thank G-d I was not born a woman”. Without misogyny, there would be no believers to exploit by oppressing women, controlling their reproductive faculties, and preventing their full freedom. There are many defects to Abramism, but misogyny is the capital defect, and any woman who loves herself should reject it completely and find a loving, woman-affirming better way (of some kind). Truly spiritually free women don’t need abramism in any form.
I strongly encourage all here to write to their diocese (all it took for me was an email) to request that their baptism be rescinded. The request will go to an archivist, who wil then forward it to the church where you were baptized, and they will then make a notation in their records and send you a copy if you wish. I’ve rejected RCC Inc’s belief system decades ago, but it was a very important symbolic act, a way of saying “you are no longer the boss of me”, more important than I thought it would be because I saw it as a formality (a way to avoid being counted among their numbers). But it was also a way to say “you cannot be the boss of me because you yourself wrote it in your records that this is so”. The former I had decided for myself a long time ago – the latter is formal notice to RCC Inc that they can no longer *try* to be the boss of me. I did feel sad for a week or so after I did this (like getting a divorce or putting down a pet), but I feel like a great weight has been lifted from me and feel lighter by the day, something I didn’t really expect. The documentation I got was nothing less than a formal manumission paper ending any slavery that remained.
Anyway, good luck to all here, stay strong, Reject and Leave if you haven’t already done so, make it formal if it helps you. Support the litigators. Break the connections, break RCC Inc.
October 3, 2008 at 2:34 pm
TMB,
I believe it.
Deanna
October 3, 2008 at 2:36 pm
clevelandgirl,
I am referring to what RC believes, I no longer believe about priests being priests for life.
deanna
October 4, 2008 at 3:14 am
There are bad priests and good priests, bad nuns and good nuns, bad lawyers and good lawyers, bad cops and good cops, bad politicians and good politicians…and, it never ends—but we don’t discredit all for the unfaithfulness of the others—or do we? Is that the Christian way? Aren’t we better than that? Yes we change when we have been abused….after all, wasn’t it what we loved, admired, and trusted the very thing that abused us? And most often we blame God for putting that thing on the same path in life as us. If one loved the Church but realized it as a haven for abuse…what happens? If on loves his Country but experienced it as a war machine against the innocent…what happens? If one loves a Parent but lived with the trauma of child abuse…what happens? If one loved God and one blamed Him for all of the pain and suffering in their life …what happens? What happens is that one never wishes to experience the pain of abuse again…and uses all sorts of ego defenses to protect the self. One often develops a love/hate relationship with the very thing that abused them. Initially they loved what abused them. At some point in time…yes, we use our head…but the heart is never silent. We have to accept the reality of the situation. We have to in some way forgive that which molested us and abused us and go forward in time—without doing so our development is arrested and we are in that deep pit of despair known as HELL. We may criticize a Church and its leadership but deep down do we really hate it or are we merely attempting to make it better through practices that do not exist at the present time?
October 7, 2008 at 12:17 pm
IMO
I do not think that ;
“There are bad priests and good priests, bad nuns and good nuns, bad lawyers and good lawyers, bad cops and good cops, bad politicians and good politicians…and, it never ends—but we don’t discredit all for the unfaithfulness of the others—or do we?”.
I do believe in what the late Malachai Martin says about the three dimensions,
1st being the natural plane (the physical world around )
2nd being the preternatural plane (those that are the “go between” the 1st & the 2nd)
3rd. being the Supernatural plane (God)
with this understanding in mind, and with all of the “facts” out there (past, present & future of Church dealings) yes,to discredit all is a personal endeavor.
Why? because to know all along and do nothing but kept an oath & swear to this type of alliance is in contradiction to what is taught as “Christianity” .
The most fundamental of all, is not protecting man’s dignity on all levels of his existence.
who is incharge of this protection of man’s dignity?
all who swear & take up an oath in “claiming” their superior (spirituality ) over others through which is taught through their selection of free will to choose a particular vocation in which “allegedly” proclaims the existence on and of the 2nd plane.
how can anyone continue to swear alliance to all that which has been taught to be true has turned out to be “false sense of security” under the guidelines of man’s idea of a “God”?.
I guess this is what is referred to as the “beast has two heads”, the “church” is being governed by those who have put themselves upon a pedestal, what they know about God is superior to other men and therefore have become the 2nd. head in worship?.
Love/Hate Relationship? good question,
to love what abused one? isn’t that like a masochism? is that healthy? or just being co-dependent?
especially when no-one is taught on Christian level how much of a level of abuse one should take?
because from the Christian standpoint and all that is brainwashed is to “unite” one’s sufferings to Christ, in-which is a distorted belief of Christianity & similar to Buddhism.
To seek a total “perfection” at the cost of another’s dignity is Christian like? or “Christianity”?.
this is what the church is geared for and in the meantime
“Glorify in the Triumphalism” and yet take no claim of its faults?
is this logically coherent to seeking the ultimate “Truth” in all things regardless of who it effects?
to think that it doesn’t effect all things is cynic to narcissism.
personally, I do not want to make it better, it is has been existing for over 2,000yrs in its distorted theories.
These originated distorted theories in which they have bestowed upon man, for spiritual enlightenment & has had a negative cause and effect of the history of man now, then and future man.
Just open your eyes and look around.
Evidence shows that the church will take the “glory” in its claims to triumphalism but not take claims to its
failures, these failures are blamed on secular world, in order to protect the imaginary fallacy of perfection in which they claim to achieve through their selected vocation.
October 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
IMO
I do not think that ;
“There are bad priests and good priests, bad nuns and good nuns, bad lawyers and good lawyers, bad cops and good cops, bad politicians and good politicians…and, it never ends—but we don’t discredit all for the unfaithfulness of the others—or do we?”.
I do believe in what the late Malachai Martin says about the three dimensions,
1st being the natural plane (the physical world around )
2nd being the preternatural plane (those that are the “go between” the 1st & the 2nd)
3rd. being the Supernatural plane (God)
with this understanding in mind, and with all of the “facts” out there (past, present & future of Church dealings) yes,to discredit all is a personal endeavor.
Why? because to know all along and do nothing but kept an oath & swear to this type of alliance is in contradiction to what is taught as “Christianity” .
The most fundamental of all, is not protecting man’s dignity on all levels of his existence.
who is incharge of this protection of man’s dignity?
all who swear & take up an oath in “claiming” their superior (spirituality ) over others through which is taught through their selection of free will to choose a particular vocation in which “allegedly” proclaims the existence on and of the 2nd plane.
how can anyone continue to swear alliance to all that which has been taught to be true has turned out to be “false sense of security” under the guidelines of man’s idea of a “God”?.
I guess this is what is referred to as the “beast has two heads”, the “church” is being governed by those who have put themselves upon a pedestal, what they know about God is superior to other men and therefore have become the 2nd. head in worship?.
Love/Hate Relationship? good question,
to love what abused one? isn’t that like a masochism? is that healthy? or just being co-dependent?
especially when no-one is taught on Christian level how much of a level of abuse one should take?
because from the Christian standpoint and all that is brainwashed is to “unite” one’s sufferings to Christ, in-which is a distorted belief of Christianity & similar to Buddhism.
To seek a total “perfection” at the cost of another’s dignity is Christian like? or “Christianity”?.
this is what the church is geared for and in the meantime
“Glorify in the Triumphalism” and yet take no claim of its faults?
is this logically coherent to seeking the ultimate “Truth” in all things regardless of who it effects?
to think that it doesn’t effect all things is cynic to narcissism.
personally, I do not want to make it better, it is has been existing for over 2,000yrs in its distorted theories.
These originated distorted theories in which they have bestowed upon man, for spiritual enlightenment & has had a negative cause and effect of the history of man now, then and future man.
Just open your eyes and look around.
Evidence shows that the church will take the “glory” in its claims to triumphalism but not take claims to its
failures, these failures are blamed on secular world, in order to protect the imaginary fallacy of perfection in which they claim to achieve through their selected vocation.
October 9, 2008 at 8:37 pm
This Church cannot survive without the people of God having a greater voice in their spiritual destiny. Either they will stay with what is now in place and change it drastically to reflect the heroism and ideals of its founder…Jesus Christ; or it will be abandoned because it is incapable of being reformed. We will all have to choose when we come to that point in time. This Church has lost its holiness if ever it had some and is not remorseful for its crimes as it knows no shame or guilt.
It would be ironic if on a Friday the 13th, the Roman Catholic Christians take back their Churches and bar the reigning bishop and his representatives from the property. The people are the church and have funded each parish community—as a group, they own the structure. Through the legal system, they should bring suit for ownership and govern themselves in all matters of religious and physical properties.
Why a Friday the 13th? Because on that date other Christians who served the Church with all of their being were slaughtered because for one reason or another, they became expendible. Some parishes have become expendible and for what reason? It is called parish closure or consolidation. For those members, like one who knows abuse, there will never really be closure.