well, on an ethical standpoint, considering that the church itself is a âbearer/beacon of ethicsâ as those are described in the Bible, if things were to go on their own ethics, I would say that âmonetary compensation for heavy sinsâ is not really in the Bible.
Not the New Testament for sure.
For the Old Testament, they were quite into the âatonement via animal crueltyâ if I remember Leviticus correctly. Yikes.
If social ethics are to be applied, then I think that this might be the root of some of the misunderstandings because âchurchâ both as an ethical, a religious and a legal entity, means different things for different societies/countries.
E.g. you said that in France the Church is not even a legal entity, whereas in Greece you can find that the Church is the biggest legal land owner in the country (indeed they often pull out deeds writen by Byzantine or Ottoman emperors claiming huge swaths of land, lakes and the entirety of the âHoly Mountainâ Athos). Therefore it is reasonable for different people from different countries to have slightly different points of view on the issue, which is what makes this so interesting to be honest
Personally I didnât know that about the church in France.
This is quite a difficult and unfortunately tragic topic, but given that I am a member of the Catholic Church, I wanted to bring up a few comments with perhaps some good and a lot of bad. Firstly though, I would just like to apologize on behalf of the Church for covering this up for such a long time, likely centuries. And while I feel like the situation has improved in the US and there is more accountability and trust, I fear there is still a lot of evil and I am extremely sorry to the perhaps millions of victims that have endured this and been scarred for the duration of their lives. I am also eternally sorry for the grave scandal this ugly reality has put on the church and the resulting distrust in its purpose to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I will number my points though understand that much of this is specific to the Catholic Church in the US, and I have recently become somewhat familiar with the situation in France as well.
Firstly, this is not a new issue for the church. It became quite a bit more familiar in the 20th century but it was not until the very end of that century that the crisis became known to the general public and the media began its widespread coverage and the Church finally had to take some steps (something that should have been done long before). However, there are historical records dating back to the 11th century regarding this problem, and we will never know how widespread it was then or is now because many victims do not wish to disclose what happened and evidence fades as time goes on and particularly after they die.
A lot more records started being collected and saved during the 20th century, but prior to the Vaticanâs requirement that sexual abuse by clerics be reported precisely to the Holy See, each individual diocese was solely responsible for handling the situation. Due to corruption in the deeper parts of the Church and some less than holy bishops, the practice of âpriest-shufflingâ become widespread, in which a priest or other cleric was simply moved to a different parish or even diocese to hide the situation from the the local parish and âassureâ victims of safety. The issue there of course is that more kids were abused since such priests frequently continue to make such terrible choices in other areas as well. Now dioceses must report to the Holy See, but of course these rules are likely still not followed very well.
People like to assume that every one of these guys that are caught and revealed to the public are sent to prison and locked up. Most are not to my understanding. The judicial system in the US should be applying the law to everyone regardless of their status and authority, but they do not. There is also corruption in the judicial system. Also, Church investigations are completely separate to investigations taken by law enforcement, so just because there is a âsubstantiated allegationâ from a diocese and the cleric is removed from his position in the church, that does not mean there will be a criminal conviction. Criminal statues of limitations play a role in this situation. I am fortunate to live in a state that does not have statutes of limitations for any crimes, including felonies and misdemeanors (though that is actually not always a good thing in some cases), but particularly many of the Eastern states will not prosecute cases after a certain amount of time. The landmark situation with Cardinal McCarrick is that he actually has been charged and currently awaiting trial for a crime he committed against a 16 year old boy in Massachusetts some fifty years ago, but that is only because he was never a resident of Massachusetts and under their law, the clock for the statute of limitations is paused if the perpetrator leaves the state. Also, even if states change the statute of limitations for sexual abuse, which they need to do, it will only apply to future perpetrators under the law. This is stupid in my opinion, but true.
Under the new law of the Catholic Church, each diocese in the United States is required to have implemented and show proof of a safe environment program which screens people volunteering for the Church as well as new potential clerics. It is also supposed to teach kids about boundaries and reporting such behavior if it happens to them. If you ask me though, it seems more like a legal âfeel-goodâ system rather than actually doing very much good. It still seems easy to me, and is somewhat proven to be true as in what we saw with McCarrick a few years ago, that those of the higher authority positions can get away with a lot more and still be protected. The only thing to my knowledge that was developed for bishops is an online reporting tool which sends a report to the local archbishop if a bishop is accused. So all you really need is the archbishops to help cover it up and the bishop will be off the hook. And all the more power you have if you were in the position McCarrick was in. Plus it took them almost twenty years of the exposed crisis to implement that small feature. As far as safe environment is concerned for children, it is okay at best. It was only recently that I really learned much about this problem as I am an 18 year-old male. It is a really difficult conversation to have particularly with young children because of how sensitive it is and I will just use myself as an example. As a boy, and at a young age, I learned about inappropriate behavior and staying safe but never thought I could be affected by it. My safe environment teacher made it sound like, particularly as I learned more about sex as a teen, that this only happened to girls. Thus I thought I was immune since I was a male and was never taught the core part of the problem, that this is mainly an issue perpetrated by priests on teenage boys. Now fortunately I have known some wonderful and very holy priests during my childhood, so I never had a problem like this and am not a victim, but had I been in a situation like this with a priest during those years I would have probably just been disgusted but confused, thinking it isnât abuse just because it is a male-on-male situation. I donât think I would have reported it, at least not right away with my personality. Thus I never even knew the core issue from those trainings. Also most kids, boys and girls, donât like telling a trusted adult because many people will not believe that with a âlovingâ priest or someone else in the church. And it is a very scary thing at a young age, especially if you donât know what is going on.
Also, this is not just a problem with children. In order to enter a seminary, you must be an adult, and there have been many cases with young men (some right around my age) being abused while they are studying to become a priest. And, if an adult is abused by a cleric, it doesnât carry anywhere near as severe of a penalty (I donât think clerics are even removed from their position in that case). Thus, it could be your eighteenth birthday, and thus not much different from the day before in terms of brain development, and all of a sudden a cleric can really take advantage of you because the consequences may not be nearly as serious. Plus under the old canon law, anyone sixteen years and older was considered an adult in the church, so many 16-17 year oldâs were abused and priests could not be punished as much. We now know that sexual abuse is very traumatic even for young adults since our brains are still developing, and that we probably only sometimes take abuse marginally better since we are not quite as helpless as children and are more aware of the problems. Thus, a lot more needs to be done to address sexual abuse for young adults in the church.
Finally, I would just like to say that there is still hope and we must continue to pray that it improves. While I am not saying that Church isnât responsible and is off the hook with everything, as we have at times made some very poor choices and done things that should have been addressed way differently, there will always be some, though hopefully few, bad clerics that due horribly evil things and do not live the message of the gospel of Jesus the way they should as shepherds of flocks. That doesnât mean that the Church is evil by definition, I am still a member after all, but rather that people of all kinds make poor choices and perpetrate sometimes horribly evil things. Priests are supposed to live celibate lives of holiness, and while many do, many also donât. It is an extremely challenging situation at times that can be hard to address. Many dioceses today, I think mine included, seem to be amazing and are doing the best they can to address this, while there are still many others that are making evil choices and need more accountability. I hope my rant has provided somewhat of an insight, but donât hesitate to critique and ask questions.
Yes itâs definitely interesting, especially with Greece and France which are so completely opposite ! On your side they still claim old Byzantine-era rights, whereas here they have lost most of what they used to have in the context of the Revolution and later secularism movement (for example even the ownership of the churches (building) was forcibly seized by the State).
Funny enough, thatâs Yanisâ motto as well ahahaha
I actually watched the video ⊠in 26 minutes the only thing of value he had to say was âplease rich people invest in useful stuff for all humans. Please? With a cherry on top?â ⊠the rest was fluff and a history overview of things that we can indeed see around us, like presenting how we shifted from an economy of actual products to an economy of services and banks and bubbles which occassionally burst and we have to pay and bail them out.
Yeah, everyone and their dog knows that. What do we do about it though?
Oh, thatâs too bad. I assume there is still some data which can be gathered from it, though? Could the vibrations from the impact be detected if/when they reach a visible part of the moon?
Thanks, and health and happiness to all of you also!
BUT ⊠I donât want to be 2022 to be my, or your, best year âeverââI hope all of you, and I also, will live to see 2023, therefore let it be our all best year SO FAR, mh?
And I think it may even be fine if it is just âour best year since [our last best year]â
I guess the phrase could be interpreted in different ways, but I naturally view it as meaning âBest Year Yetâ rather than âBest Year Foreverâ (or âEver Will Beâ).
Given that weâre talking about something that has only just begun, I think it is also more of an expression of hope, rather than an assertion of fact.
However, I also kind of feel like there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm that could be interpreted in the thread title.
I interpret the âof all timeâ as meaning past, present, and future, which, of course, can only be speculative, but naturally comes about from overly enthusiastic fans.
)
