A force for good or evil?

[Maxinquaye]

I'm gay. It's got little to do with this post, except to setup the line of reasoning below. As a gay man, I've never really felt that I've been oppressed by the state or the government. Objectively I have, of course, by inability to do certain things - like getting married. But since strong civil unions were made legal in my country already back in 1995 and I didn't get an urge to tie the knot until I came out as a gay man in 2000, I have never felt oppressed by the state or the government.

What has hurt me, badly sometimes, is my surroundings, my community, my closest, the ones I looked to for support and help when it was difficult. Growing up in an area dominated by a conservative religious grouping called Laestadians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laestadianism). They don't like gays. Not one bit. Even the people that does not belong to the "cult" are influenced by it. I have been influenced by it, for chrissakes.

Many people tend to see government or the state as a seperate thing, an objective entity far away. Most countries' citizens complain about decisions being made in the faraway capital. Those people, they don't know what it's like in the real life, is the reasoning. They're out of touch, they're not quite real.

I beg to differ. The government, and the state, is not an objective abstract entity far, far away. It is made up of people, and it is made up of people like you and me, and its roots are thickest down in the town hall in our municipalities. And the thickest roots of the state is found in the concept of community. Even the staunchest despoty is impossible without support from some grass roots. A dictator is a dead dictator if he loses the support of his grass roots. A democracy needs its voters, needs it cliques and its focus groups.

Gordon Brown needs the MP from the thickest north to stay in power, Obama needs his state senators, and Ceaucescu needed the local offices of the Securitate and the recruits from the families of the oppressed. And these low level, vital influents get their ideas and their cores and their beliefs from the community around them.

The state never hurt me, apart from taking a year out of my life and force me to do military service at the young age of 18. My community, it has hurt me plenty: mostly without thought and intention, sometimes very deliberately. It is the community and the idea that the community has power over the individual that is dangerous.

Point in case, the Catholic Church in Ireland that now face implosion. The church in Ireland was considered to be the bulwark of the good community; it helped the poor, educated the children, eased the dying into the next life, and marked the start of the new life. It ushered the child into the adult world, and it graced the new adult's love. It still tries to do that, but in Ireland many people see another side to the Catholic church, the corrupt and the insidious evil dwelling at its heart.

The systematic abuse of 15 thousand children over the last decades have exposed the danger of the trusted community.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-tries-to-stem-tide-of-sex-abuse-allegations-1924330.html

The state has never hurt me. The community has. Sometimes it continues to hurt me, either out of ignorance or out of malice. Sometimes communities go corrupt, either through an idea that many submit to, or through actions of a clique in that community.

The Catholic church in Ireland is a good example of why the individual should be the sole measuring stock of a decent society.

[Shakesbear]

The Catholic church in Ireland is a good example of why the individual should be the sole measuring stock of a decent society.

I do not think that is "the sole measuring stock of a decent society."


Are you saying that one rotten individual means a whole society is rotten?

[Maxinquaye]

I do not think that is "the sole measuring stock of a decent society."


Are you saying that one rotten individual means a whole society is rotten?

Are you saying that fifteen thousand abused children are the result of a few "bad apples"?

[DavidZahir]

Are you saying that fifteen thousand abused children are the result of a few "bad apples"? I would say such is the result of a whole lot of bad apples. What percentage of apples are bad is a far more complex question.

Of course, you're also answering a question with a question, and I don't see how said question in any way functions as an answer. Honestly, I don't really understand this sentence:...the individual should be the sole measuring stock of a decent society. Could you please elaborate?

[Romantic Heretic]

I've long known you should judge a person and not their society.

Unfortunately many people have trouble forming their own identities. Their identity is drawn from the place they live in, they become part of the group and cease to be individuals.

As Erich Fromm pointed out in Escape From Freedom (http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Freedom-Erich-Fromm/dp/0805031499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269109194&sr=8-1) there are psychological rewards for this. A person becomes part of something greater than themselves. As well individual responsibility is lost, a painful burden many cheerfully put aside.

But it's part of human nature to act this way. We are still apes at the core and still organize ourselves into troops. We do what our alphas tell us to do and conspire to become alphas ourselves.

[Shakesbear]

Are you saying that fifteen thousand abused children are the result of a few "bad apples"?

It only takes one 'rotten apple' to infect a whole barrel.

[StephanieFox]

I find it interesting that the Laestadians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laestadianism) have their main observance on Midsummer. No matter how hard they try, they can't seem to get away from their Pagan roots.

I also noticed that the group has a presence right here in my town. i'm gonna do some research.

It is true that people can come to love their chains and seek to impose their lack of freedom on others. But it's not everyone. Religion is one way people who don't want the responsibility of making their own moral and ethical decisions can escape responsibility. It's also a way that people with evil intent can do bad things. But that's not everyone (and this is coming from a Jewish/Pagan/atheist/Pastafarian.


OK, I'm back. Here's what I found out about the local Laestadian congrigation. They said on their website:
On three separate occasions the congregation experienced spiritual tempests that have, through false doctrine, resulted in significant numbers separating into heresy. However, the Lord's congregation in Minneapolis has traveled victoriously regardless of obstacles.

Hmmm. 'heresy'. That's pretty dark ages.

Also, on homosexuality:
It appears that it is only a matter of time before homosexual marriage is a fact of life in our society. In this environment, God's children truly feel discouraged and vexed like Lot, who dwelt in the wicked city of Sodom on the eve of its destruction (2 Pet. 2:7). God did not forget Lot but delivered him from temptation and from the destruction that fell upon the ungodly. He will also protect and deliver His children in these evil times. It pays to believe.

So, if you hate homosexuals the way we do, God will love and protect you. If you are OK with homosexuals and support their rights, God will punish you.

Sorry you had to grown up with this.

[LOG]

It pays to believe
ROFL
Love the corporate influence in religious propaganda.


Anyways, I'm still somewhat unclear here Max, are you asking if the church, the community or the government is a force for good or evil?

[johnnysannie]

Are you saying that fifteen thousand abused children are the result of a few "bad apples"?

The "few bad apples" are spread out over several decades....from about the mid-1930's to nearly the present day.

An interesting article from Psychology Today addresses many of the misinformation tidbits that fly through the media and the world wide web.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus


.
by Thomas Plante, PhD Thomas Plante, PhD., ABPP is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Spirituality and Health Institute at Santa Clara University.

Six important points you don't hear about regarding clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church
More myths than facts in Catholic clergy sexual abuse discussions
Published on March 24, 2010


There are a lot more myths than facts bantered around about clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Here are 6 important points that you should know if you are interested in this topic.

1. Catholic clergy aren't more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general.

According to the best available data (which is pretty good mostly coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 as well as several other studies), 4% of Catholic priests in the USA sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published that states that this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4% figure is lower than school teachers (at 5%) during the same time frame and perhaps as much as half of the numbers of the general population of men.


2. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on celibacy.

First, if Catholic clergy aren't more likely to be sex offenders than other clergy or men in general, then celibacy can't be blamed. Most sex offenders are not celibate clergy. Most are married or partnered. Furthermore, many men who don't have sex for a variety of reasons (e.g., no suitable partners, marital or relationship distress) don't turn to children for sexual gratification. They turn to other consenting adults.

3. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on homosexuality.

Although the vast majority of victims are boys (80% according to the 2004 John Jay study and other studies) and the Catholic Church has a large number of priests who are homosexual in orientation (22% to 45% according to a variety of studies and reports), homosexuality doesn't make men sex offenders. No evidence exists that suggest that sexual orientation, in and of itself, makes someone at risk to commit sex crimes against children or others. Sexual orientation is not a risk factor for crime.

4. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on an all male clergy.

If Catholic clergy aren't more likely to be sex offenders than other clergy from other traditions, then an all male clergy can't be blamed. Having women clergy doesn't stop sex offenders from offending.

5. Almost all of clergy sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church that we hear about in the news are from decades ago (usually the 1960's and 70's).

Although these stories are horrific to hear, they are almost never about incidents that occurred since the late 1980's. Incidents of abuse in the past 20 to 25 years are quite rare compared to incidents during the 60's and 70's. Incidents since the 2002 crisis in the USA unfolded are especially rare. Most are from international priests who were both born and formed (i.e., trained and ordained) overseas who generally didn't go through the screening and training process that local men go through.

6. Most clergy sex offenders aren't pedophiles.

Research tells us that about 80% of clergy sex offenders abuse post pubescent teens, not pre pubescent children. So, the phrase "pedophile priest" is a misnomer. You might say that it doesn't matter. Both categories involve victimizing minors. But the risk factor profile as well as the evaluation and treatment prognosis is much different between the two groups.

Perhaps the real issue here is that many are outraged with Church leaders (especially bishops) whom they believe have been defensive and arrogant. Clearly, some of them treated victims and their families very poorly. For many rank-and-file Catholics who often put priests on a pedestal, it is shocking to hear that some of these men have sexually violated anyone. The Church's unpopular positions on sexual ethics (e.g., masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, divorce) make sex crimes committed by priests even more scandalous. The secrecy and otherworldliness of the Catholic Church also make the story of child sexual abuse committed by priests of great interest to the media and to the general population.

It all sounds like a Dan Brown novel!

Finally, many of the 25% of Americans who are Catholic have ambivalent feelings about their Church to begin with even before the clergy abuse crisis unfolded. Many who were raised in the Church during previous generations have deeply emotional stories of priests and nuns who had impossibly high standards for thought and behavior which makes stories of clergy sexually violating children so hypocritical. Perhaps the gospel verse "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" from John 8:7 sums up this sentiment.

The recent clergy abuse stories coming out of Europe and South America are not surprising but we have to be reasoned letting good data and logic inform us rather than relying on myths and hysteria.

For more information, you might review my 2004 book, Sin against the Innocents: Sexual Abuse by Priests and the Role of the Catholic Church and my 1999 book, Bless Me Father For I Have Sinned: Perspectives on Sexual Abuse Committed by Roman Catholic Priests. Additionally, you might take a look at the John Jay Study referred to earlier which can be accessed from the US Council of Catholic Bishops web site: (http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/).

[dgiharris]

There is a little bit of chicken <=> egg convolution here.

A society is a COLLECTION of individuals <=> An individual is shaped by his/her society <=> Individuals determine the form of a society<=>A society is a COLLECTION of individuals...

This makes for complex problem identification and solution.

It's almost impossible to tell where the solution actually comes from.

However the easiest part to influence though is the individual, so I guess it makes sense to start there, trying to change the hearts and minds of people.

It is my belief, however, that there are different types of people. If I were to stereotype, I would say there are leaders and followers. Problem is, it is hard to reason with 'followers'. Followers believe what they believe and pretty much follow the thought currents of their designated leaders. Sure, most of us would like to believe we form our own opinions, but for the majority of people, that is a fallacy. Almost like a bird believing it became a bird by its own choice.

Once those pathways are set, i.e. blacks are inferior, women don't belong in the workplace, etc. it is hard to change.

So then, starting at the individual level means that you need to try to influence 'leaders', people with the ability to not only think for themselves but who can influence others. Eventually, this coalesces into a movement. But there will be a 'counter' movement to maintain the status quo. The two forces will clash until there is an ideological winner.

The biggest problem with homosexuality is that they haven't reached a 'critical mass' yet (at least in the US).

They need to achieve a critical mass and have the means to protest on the scale of the civil rights era of the 60s across the country (at key locations).

I believe that the timing is right, huge percentages of the heterosexual population (dare I say the majority in many regions) are supportive to gay rights.

Mel...

[Diana Hignutt]

ROFL
Love the corporate influence in religious propaganda.


Anyways, I'm still somewhat unclear here Max, are you asking if the church, the community or the government is a force for good or evil?

Everything is a force for evil and good, in varying degrees. Nothing escapes this.

[Don]

Except me, Diana. I'm always a force for good. :)

[jana13k]

I guess I don't see the point of this post at all. So discrimination exists - is that really news? And while the government can create all the laws in the world to prevent discrimination in the workplace, in public places, etc. it can't legislate opinion. People will hate if they want to and no law is going to change that.

As a writer I will also defend to the death anyone's right to free speech, EVEN IF I disagree with every single thing they say.

No one ever said that freedom came with no consequences.

Mind you - I don't agree with hatred or racism on any level, and one of my best friends is gay, but I simply don't see a solution except time.

[Diana Hignutt]

Except me, Diana. I'm always a force for good. :)

I stand corrected.

[Romantic Heretic]

Everything is a force for evil and good, in varying degrees. Nothing escapes this.
No tool is good or evil. The blame always falls with the tool users.

As I've pointed out in the past I can use a shovel to dig a ditch or plant a garden. Or, if I want, I can gut or brain another human being with it. In either case it's not the shovel's credit or blame, it's mine.

To assign ethical qualities to a tool is to make any action taken with it good or evil. So killing another human being becomes a good thing or planting a garden becomes a bad thing.

Unfortunately assigning ethical qualities to tools is something human beings do far too often.

[maxmordon]

The "few bad apples" are spread out over several decades....from about the mid-1930's to nearly the present day.

An interesting article from Psychology Today addresses many of the misinformation tidbits that fly through the media and the world wide web.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus


.
by Thomas Plante, PhD Thomas Plante, PhD., ABPP is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Spirituality and Health Institute at Santa Clara University.

Six important points you don't hear about regarding clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church
More myths than facts in Catholic clergy sexual abuse discussions
Published on March 24, 2010


There are a lot more myths than facts bantered around about clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Here are 6 important points that you should know if you are interested in this topic.

1. Catholic clergy aren't more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general.

According to the best available data (which is pretty good mostly coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 as well as several other studies), 4% of Catholic priests in the USA sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published that states that this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4% figure is lower than school teachers (at 5%) during the same time frame and perhaps as much as half of the numbers of the general population of men.


2. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on celibacy.

First, if Catholic clergy aren't more likely to be sex offenders than other clergy or men in general, then celibacy can't be blamed. Most sex offenders are not celibate clergy. Most are married or partnered. Furthermore, many men who don't have sex for a variety of reasons (e.g., no suitable partners, marital or relationship distress) don't turn to children for sexual gratification. They turn to other consenting adults.

3. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on homosexuality.

Although the vast majority of victims are boys (80% according to the 2004 John Jay study and other studies) and the Catholic Church has a large number of priests who are homosexual in orientation (22% to 45% according to a variety of studies and reports), homosexuality doesn't make men sex offenders. No evidence exists that suggest that sexual orientation, in and of itself, makes someone at risk to commit sex crimes against children or others. Sexual orientation is not a risk factor for crime.

4. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can't be blamed on an all male clergy.

If Catholic clergy aren't more likely to be sex offenders than other clergy from other traditions, then an all male clergy can't be blamed. Having women clergy doesn't stop sex offenders from offending.

5. Almost all of clergy sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church that we hear about in the news are from decades ago (usually the 1960's and 70's).

Although these stories are horrific to hear, they are almost never about incidents that occurred since the late 1980's. Incidents of abuse in the past 20 to 25 years are quite rare compared to incidents during the 60's and 70's. Incidents since the 2002 crisis in the USA unfolded are especially rare. Most are from international priests who were both born and formed (i.e., trained and ordained) overseas who generally didn't go through the screening and training process that local men go through.

6. Most clergy sex offenders aren't pedophiles.

Research tells us that about 80% of clergy sex offenders abuse post pubescent teens, not pre pubescent children. So, the phrase "pedophile priest" is a misnomer. You might say that it doesn't matter. Both categories involve victimizing minors. But the risk factor profile as well as the evaluation and treatment prognosis is much different between the two groups.

Perhaps the real issue here is that many are outraged with Church leaders (especially bishops) whom they believe have been defensive and arrogant. Clearly, some of them treated victims and their families very poorly. For many rank-and-file Catholics who often put priests on a pedestal, it is shocking to hear that some of these men have sexually violated anyone. The Church's unpopular positions on sexual ethics (e.g., masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, divorce) make sex crimes committed by priests even more scandalous. The secrecy and otherworldliness of the Catholic Church also make the story of child sexual abuse committed by priests of great interest to the media and to the general population.

It all sounds like a Dan Brown novel!

Finally, many of the 25% of Americans who are Catholic have ambivalent feelings about their Church to begin with even before the clergy abuse crisis unfolded. Many who were raised in the Church during previous generations have deeply emotional stories of priests and nuns who had impossibly high standards for thought and behavior which makes stories of clergy sexually violating children so hypocritical. Perhaps the gospel verse "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" from John 8:7 sums up this sentiment.

The recent clergy abuse stories coming out of Europe and South America are not surprising but we have to be reasoned letting good data and logic inform us rather than relying on myths and hysteria.

For more information, you might review my 2004 book, Sin against the Innocents: Sexual Abuse by Priests and the Role of the Catholic Church and my 1999 book, Bless Me Father For I Have Sinned: Perspectives on Sexual Abuse Committed by Roman Catholic Priests. Additionally, you might take a look at the John Jay Study referred to earlier which can be accessed from the US Council of Catholic Bishops web site: (http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/).

Quite a fascinating report, thanks for it.