I am not saying that I expect the church to be free of pedaphilia, I am saying - as others have - that priests and hierarchies who rigidly hold others to higher standards and are in positions of notable authority can legitimately be held to higher standards than that of the general public... but that, at least, they ought to be deeply committed to better vetting themselves and holding themselves to higher standards, something Ratzinger and oh so many others have clearly gone out of their way not to do.
Furthermore, Ratzinger's conservatism and that of his mentors and buddies has done everything it could to make sure that priests remain celibate, that they not be able to marry or have children, that women not be allowed to enter the priesthood (none of which is Biblical - you've read Spong, Borg, et al.) and that any and all elements and tendencies within Vatican II are obliterated... In short, pretty much any tendencies towards progressive reform of the church, towards transparency about the church's contradictions and self-imposed irrationalities, towards forms of administration that might have dealt with pedaphilia and its prevalence (at "normal" Western rates - as if these rates were part, parcel and intimately related to our Church associated, though not determined, neuroses about bodies, fluids, sex and sexuality) have been rejected by the Pope and his cronies.
And, I apologize, I left words out, I meant another institution that has done as much to suppress information about and deny culpability in the face of pedaphilia in its ranks. In that case, I don't think the legal professional fits.
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Somehow its an excuse - or presents a normative equivalent - that Catholic
> > priests, local mediators between the laity and God - are no worse than
> the
> > non-Catholic, non-priestly public in terms of their rates of pedaphilia?
> > That their position of power and responsibility in the community isn't
> > different than that of other individuals, other pedaphiles?
> >
>
> Yes, Alan, excusing and normalizing pedophilia is exactly what I am doing.
>
> I really don't get your point here. Are you saying that you consider child
> molestation bad, and frown on it in any quantity? That just seems like an
> exercise in moralizing laziness.
>
> Are you saying that the church should be free of pedophilia altogether? A
> capital good idea, but unlikely to happen soon in an organization with
> 1.147
> billion members.
>
> I could guess at what you mean, but my guesses would as likely be wrong as
> right (and everything that comes to mind is equally self-obvious). Perhaps
> you might just tell me?
>
>
> > Is there an equivalent non-religious social hierarchy, over the last 50
> > years (or far longer), that has done as much to suppress discovery and
> > dissent and to displace responsibility as the Catholic hierarchy, where
> > Ratzinger has long been a loyal, very conservative major player?
> >
>
> That must be a joke. Surely you've heard of the legal profession?
>
> How do Ratzinger's loyalty and conservatism relate to the topic at hand?
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> lytlað."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319