Theology

[Domina Nostra]

I think the characterization may be a little unfair of the "new age" type that may be fighting to remake the church. Let's be honest, the "teachings" of the church have changed over time. While some would like to believe current interpretation has been in stone for 2000 years, that's just not true. Marriage in the clergy was once accepted. The death penalty stance just changed.

The thing is Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. didn't address everything explicitly. Some of those things were just non-debatable and unthinkable within the tradition, like bestiality (to use the most extreme example). Other things were not addressed directly because they had no historical antecedent, but the eventual rule flowed naturally and inevitably from consistently held principals: like the modern prohibition on porn flows from teachings on lust, chastity, sex outside of marriage prostitution, etc.

Other teachings are a bit more difficult. Slavery for example, is not a narrow, easily defined topic. You have purely evil forms like Louisiana chattel slavery, or Bablylonain slave mines. Then you have "softer" forms, like a Roman owning a Greek doctor who got into a financial predicament until the doctor can buy back his freedom. The Church never condoned the idea that some people, i.e., masters, were actually born superior to their slaves, and saw the slaves as potential spiritual equals. Further, they did not condone the idea that masters were exempt from certain moral prohibitions (stealing, abusing, adultery), just because they were a slave owner. Nor dis they agree that slaves have no claim on justice-- they are children of God like everyone else, and they were preached to accordingly. So chattel slavery was always out.

But the supposedly "softer" arrangement where somebody "owned" the right to fruit of someone else's labor, was just seen as kind of a background fact--one that made sense in a historical era when you had to rely on rich people around you--not a "government" safety net which didn't exist--when things went wrong. And just like its a fact that you have to answer to the government regarding taxes, educating your children, disposing wastes, etc.--you aren't "free" in those regards--its not morally unthinkable that there are some occasions where another is allowed to claim the fruits of your work in return for paying off your debts and keeping you fed and sheltered.

The fact that Catholics get sloppy and talk too narrowly or too broadly at times about slavery doesn't change that. It was just how things were. The Church opposes it wholesale now, but really more as a matter of intellectual convenience and rhetorical savvy. You predictably lose any moral authority you may bring to a situation if you give an inch on that topic. It is extremely easy to say, "You heard it with your own ears, ladies and gentlemen! my opponent supports slavery!" Making the intellectual distinction is a losing cause. And there is no need for the "softer" form these days (thank God!), so why fight for something that is irrelevant anyway? Nevertheless, one can imagine a situation where you were evangelizing some obscure tribe and found out that the matriarch of the town "owned" some of her kin for some purposes within their tribe. Depending on the arrangement, you can imagine it wouldn't be seen as an insurmountable impediment to her conversion. It would be seen as something that needed to get worked out in due time.

Celibacy has also never been taught as absolutely required. However, it is taught as superior by both Jesus and Paul. It also a huge sign of contradiction to the world, and getting rid of it is going to have all kinds of affects, both anticipated and unanticipated. Spiritual as well as temporal. It's not something that you just impose or don't impose depending on organizational needs--especially those articulated by a class who may be guilt of creating the conditions that have created the need . Christianity is a religion, and these decisions have spiritual overtones. But no one credible is arguing that it is required by God.

The death penalty issue is just a case where the Pope is trying to impose his personal view on the rest of the Church, in line with the trend in modern theology (JPII and BXVI may agree?). Whether the majority of Catholics and theologians agree with him or not can't withstand the fact that the Church has taught THE EXACT OPPOSITE in the past. So either he is wrong, or the Church was wrong. But if it is the latter is true, it opens the door on the Church being wrong about the Pope'a authority as well. Long story short, the Pope logically can't logically appeal to Church authority to undermine a Church teaching. He either undermines himself, or both. The only alternative is that he is a living oracle that brings us new teachings. But that is terrifying and definitely NOT Catholicism.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Furthermore, if you want to learn more on Christianity and Slavery, read St. Paul's letter to Philemon.

 

[Irish YJ]

Furthermore, if you want to learn more on Christianity and Slavery, read St. Paul's letter to Philemon.

Sure, that's one area. Luke, Timothy, Peter, Colossians, Ephesians, Exodus, and Titus are also required reading. One must not limit their opinion to only one.

I prefer what Deuteronomy says on the topic, which is the clearest rebuke of those above..

 

[zelezo vlk]

Sure, that's one area. Luke, Timothy, Peter, Colossians, Ephesians, Exodus, and Titus are also required reading. One must not limit their opinion to only one.

I prefer what Deuteronomy says on the topic, which is the clearest rebuke of those above..

Bruh you don't understand the difference between the Old and New Testaments?

 

[Irish YJ]

The thing is Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. didn't address everything explicitly. Some of those things were just non-debatable and unthinkable within the tradition, like bestiality (to use the most extreme example). Other things were not addressed directly because they had no historical antecedent, but the eventual rule flowed naturally and inevitably from consistently held principals: like the modern prohibition on porn flows from teachings on lust, chastity, sex outside of marriage prostitution, etc.

Other teachings are a bit more difficult. Slavery for example, is not a narrow, easily defined topic. You have purely evil forms like Louisiana chattel slavery, or Bablylonain slave mines. Then you have "softer" forms, like a Roman owning a Greek doctor who got into a financial predicament until the doctor can buy back his freedom. The Church never condoned the idea that some people, i.e., masters, were actually born superior to their slaves, and saw the slaves as potential spiritual equals. Further, they did not condone the idea that masters were exempt from certain moral prohibitions (stealing, abusing, adultery), just because they were a slave owner. Nor dis they agree that slaves have no claim on justice-- they are children of God like everyone else, and they were preached to accordingly. So chattel slavery was always out.

But the supposedly "softer" arrangement where somebody "owned" the right to fruit of someone else's labor, was just seen as kind of a background fact--one that made sense in a historical era when you had to rely on rich people around you--not a "government" safety net which didn't exist--when things went wrong. And just like its a fact that you have to answer to the government regarding taxes, educating your children, disposing wastes, etc.--you aren't "free" in those regards--its not morally unthinkable that there are some occasions where another is allowed to claim the fruits of your work in return for paying off your debts and keeping you fed and sheltered.

The fact that Catholics get sloppy and talk too narrowly or too broadly at times about slavery doesn't change that. It was just how things were. The Church opposes it wholesale now, but really more as a matter of intellectual convenience and rhetorical savvy. You predictably lose any moral authority you may bring to a situation if you give an inch on that topic. It is extremely easy to say, "You heard it with your own ears, ladies and gentlemen! my opponent supports slavery!" Making the intellectual distinction is a losing cause. And there is no need for the "softer" form these days (thank God!), so why fight for something that is irrelevant anyway? Nevertheless, one can imagine a situation where you were evangelizing some obscure tribe and found out that the matriarch of the town "owned" some of her kin for some purposes within their tribe. Depending on the arrangement, you can imagine it wouldn't be seen as an insurmountable impediment to her conversion. It would be seen as something that needed to get worked out in due time.

Celibacy has also never been taught as absolutely required. However, it is taught as superior by both Jesus and Paul. It also a huge sign of contradiction to the world, and getting rid of it is going to have all kinds of affects, both anticipated and unanticipated. Spiritual as well as temporal. It's not something that you just impose or don't impose depending on organizational needs--especially those articulated by a class who may be guilt of creating the conditions that have created the need . Christianity is a religion, and these decisions have spiritual overtones. But no one credible is arguing that it is required by God.

The death penalty issue is just a case where the Pope is trying to impose his personal view on the rest of the Church, in line with the trend in modern theology (JPII and BXVI may agree?). Whether the majority of Catholics and theologians agree with him or not can't withstand the fact that the Church has taught THE EXACT OPPOSITE in the past. So either he is wrong, or the Church was wrong. But if it is the latter is true, it opens the door on the Church being wrong about the Pope'a authority as well. Long story short, the Pope logically can't logically appeal to Church authority to undermine a Church teaching. He either undermines himself, or both. The only alternative is that he is a living oracle that brings us new teachings. But that is terrifying and definitely NOT Catholicism.

Respect your opinions, but chalking some things up to "it was just how things were" at the time, in itself opens up that same logic to be applied to all things in the Bible. Intellectually you can't say the Bible is infallible in all things, then say "well yes it was wrong, but was just a product of different times". Infallible by definition clearly defies that reasoning. Something like slavery (regardless of hard or soft), is wrong regardless of the time.

I do agree that the writings were absolutely a product of the times. And I believe the individuals charged with later picking the books of the Bible were absolutely a product of their times. But infallible, absolutely not. And if not infallible, and subject to the "times", is absolutely open to debate, disagreement, and re-interpretation based on current times. The mental gymnastics applied to some of these topics to make them fit a narrative or retain infallibility, simply defies logic, and applies too much convenient reasoning to hold water.

 

[Irish YJ]

Bruh you don't understand the difference between the Old and New Testaments?

Come on Z. I provided both Old and New examples where there is contradiction. Not sure I understand your point?

My point about favoring Deuteronomy, is simply because it's the clearest anti-slavery passage IMO in either book. Does it matter that it's Old? I'd be happy to list pro-slavery passages in both New and Old.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Come on Z. I provided both Old and New examples where there is contradiction. Not sure I understand your point?

My point about favoring Deuteronomy, is simply because it's the clearest anti-slavery passage IMO in either book. Does it matter that it's Old? I'd be happy to list pro-slavery passages in both New and Old.

Well that is my mistake and I apologize for that.

 

[Irish YJ]

Well that is my mistake and I apologize for that. You still have not proven that the teachings of the church have changed in any meaningful way (here's a tip for ya, they haven't).

1) New and Old Testaments supported slavery in several passages. Some more extreme than others.

2) Early Christianity supported slavery, but did maintain certain guidelines on treatment. St. Patrick was one of the first to actually push abolition.

3) Augustine said slavery was not natural, but also said it was product of sin. He was very soft on it. Aquinas also said it was not supported by Natural Law, but was acceptable in many situations.

4) Gregory spoke against it, but the papal estate still owned slaves.

5) Clement didn't want to condemn it because of the impact it might have on society.

6) The medieval years saw the Church took a stance against Christian slaves, but still was more than fine with non-Christian slaves.

7) Pope Gregory IX, actually put slavery into Cannon Law.


I can keep going and going and going.... but for the sake of logic, fast forward to the here and now. The Church is clearly against it.

Is that not clear "change" in teachings.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Respect your opinions, but chalking some things up to "it was just how things were" at the time, in itself opens up that same logic to be applied to all things in the Bible. Intellectually you can't say the Bible is infallible in all things, then say "well yes it was wrong, but was just a product of different times". Infallible by definition clearly defies that reasoning. Something like slavery (regardless of hard or soft), is wrong regardless of the time.

I do agree that the writings were absolutely a product of the times. And I believe the individuals charged with later picking the books of the Bible were absolutely a product of their times. But infallible, absolutely not. And if not infallible, and subject to the "times", is absolutely open to debate, disagreement, and re-interpretation based on current times. The mental gymnastics applied to some of these topics to make them fit a narrative or retain infallibility, simply defies logic, and applies too much convenient reasoning to hold water.

I never chalked anything to "that's just how it was at the time." You just read it that way.

Regarding slavery I said that they did not issue a blanket condemnation on the institution because the broad term covers both:

(1) activities that are always reprehensible (like chattel slavery, which the Church always condemned) and
(2) behaviors that are not necessarily reprehensible (something more like indentured servitude).

Anyone can say indentured servitude or poor houses are wrong regardless of the time, but I think if they really push the argument, they'd realize they are just relying on contemporary sentiment that its better that we don't do this anymore (I agree that its clearly better that we don't). But that these are wrong is certainly not self-evident the way that chattel slavery (i.e., treating a person like an animal or piece of property) is wrong.

Moreover, the Church is made of people, and where the Bible does not expressly address and issue, the Church might not either until there is a real world need to do so. In those cases, the Churches teaching might pivot because it was previously underdeveloped. For example, the Popes condemned slavery when it picked back up with the discovery of Indians in the Americas, and also condemned the American slave trade (even if they didn't support the North's war against the South).

However, where the Bible or the Church has taught something definitively, it can't change its teachings.

 

[Irish YJ]

I never chalked anything to "that's just how it was at the time." You just read it that way.

Regarding slavery I said that they did not issue a blanket condemnation on the institution because the broad term covers both:

(1) activities that are always reprehensible (like chattel slavery, which the Church always condemned) and
(2) behaviors that are not necessarily reprehensible (something more like indentured servitude).

Anyone can say indentured servitude or poor houses are wrong regardless of the time, but I think if they really push the argument, they'd realize they are just relying on contemporary sentiment that its better that we don't do this anymore (I agree that its clearly better that we don't). But that these are wrong is certainly not self-evident the way that chattel slavery (i.e., treating a person like an animal or piece of property) is wrong.

Moreover, the Church is made of people, and where the Bible does not expressly address and issue, the Church might not either until there is a real world need to do so. In those cases, the Churches teaching might pivot because it was previously underdeveloped. For example, the Popes condemned slavery when it picked back up with the discovery of Indians in the Americas, and also condemned the American slave trade (even if they didn't support the North's war against the South).

However, where the Bible or the Church has taught something definitively, it can't change its teachings.

I apologize if I misunderstood your intent, but I thought the context was clear. I'll re-read.

The Bible, and the Church, are full of writing, opinions, and even law over the years. They address both types of slavery. And the Church had plenty of opportunity through the years to condemn both.

I'd recommend looking at the basics below. I can recommend "deeper" writings as well, but the below is pretty clear on the factual histories and provides the basics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

 

[ickythump1225]

1) New and Old Testaments supported slavery in several passages. Some more extreme than others.

2) Early Christianity supported slavery, but did maintain certain guidelines on treatment. St. Patrick was one of the first to actually push abolition.

3) Augustine said slavery was not natural, but also said it was product of sin. He was very soft on it. Aquinas also said it was not supported by Natural Law, but was acceptable in many situations.

4) Gregory spoke against it, but the papal estate still owned slaves.

5) Clement didn't want to condemn it because of the impact it might have on society.

6) The medieval years saw the Church took a stance against Christian slaves, but still was more than fine with non-Christian slaves.

7) Pope Gregory IX, actually put slavery into Cannon Law.


I can keep going and going and going.... but for the sake of logic, fast forward to the here and now. The Church is clearly against it.

Is that not clear "change" in teachings.

Slavery is a cultural and/or political practice, not a Dogma of the Church pertaining to the deposit of faith.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I apologize if I misunderstood your intent, but I thought the context was clear. I'll re-read.

The Bible, and the Church, are full of writing, opinions, and even law over the years. They address both types of slavery. And the Church had plenty of opportunity through the years to condemn both.

I'd recommend looking at the basics below. I can recommend "deeper" writings as well, but the below is pretty clear on the factual histories and provides the basics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

Haha! I've read a lot about it over the years. Not sure Wikipedia would be my go to source.

 

[Irish YJ]

Slavery is a cultural and/or political practice, not a Dogma of the Church pertaining to the deposit of faith.

Not sure what your point is relevant to the conversation below?

Slavery is not Dogma, but at one time was at least Doctrine (Cannon Law via PGreg9).

And on contrasting Dogma to Doctrine...

Greetings in Christ. I hope this response will adequately address your question.

The term “doctrine” can be used generally to refer to all of the Church’s teachings. In addition, we can say that dogma is a subset of doctrine — all dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. A doctrine is a teaching of the universal Church proposed as necessary for belief by the faithful. Dogmas, properly speaking, are such teachings that are set forth to be believed as divinely revealed (Catechism, no. 88; cf. 891-892). When differentiating from dogma, we use the term “doctrine” to signify teachings that are either definitively proposed or those that are proposed as true, but not in a definitive manner (cf. Catechism, nos. 88, 891-92).

For Catholics, there is an important difference between the teachings that we must believe, which are infallible and unchangeable (doctrine), and the rules that we must obey but which are changeable (disciplines). Finally, there are areas where we are free to believe or not believe without offending against faith (theological opinions).

https://catholicexchange.com/difference-between-doctrine-and-dogma

 

[Irish YJ]

Haha! I've read a lot about it over the years. Not sure Wikipedia would be my go to source.

Ha. Bag on Wiki all you want. It doesn't diminish the facts. If you believe the links factually incorrect, please feel free argue. Most of the data are simple facts and accepted history (not slanted subjective info). Even if you can find a few cracks, the evidence is overwhelming.

And like I said, I can provide "deeper" reading recommendations. But again, feel free to tell me what Wiki gets wrong.

 

[ickythump1225]

Bro, just admit you don't want to be Catholic anymore. All of this just sounds like a guy looking for the exit door but trying to save face and make it seem more noble than it is. I'm not trying to be a d!ck, ask Whiskey, him and I have had some talks. I was once more or less in your shoes.

As far as the slavery issue goes, it's just the silver bullet your mind has conjured up to make you believe you have the Church at checkmate. Do I have the time or inclination to refute what you're saying? No. Do I believe that 2000 years of Church history, tradition, and standing are going to fall because a moderately educated layman has discovered the Church once supported slavery? No.

Again it all boils down to whether or not you believe the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ with St. Peter as the first pope. If you do, then I'd advise against finding theological rabbit holes to get lost down, it will only bring you harm. If you don't, just admit it to yourself and walk away. Stop trying to justify it.

 

[Irish YJ]

Bro, just admit you don't want to be Catholic anymore. All of this just sounds like a guy looking for the exit door but trying to save face and make it seem more noble than it is. I'm not trying to be a d!ck, ask Whiskey, him and I have had some talks. I was once more or less in your shoes.

As far as the slavery issue goes, it's just the silver bullet your mind has conjured up to make you believe you have the Church at checkmate. Do I have the time or inclination to refute what you're saying? No. Do I believe that 2000 years of Church history, tradition, and standing are going to fall because a moderately educated layman has discovered the Church once supported slavery? No.

Again it all boils down to whether or not you believe the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ with St. Peter as the first pope. If you do, then I'd advise against finding theological rabbit holes to get lost down, it will only bring you harm. If you don't, just admit it to yourself and walk away. Stop trying to justify it.

You actually have it wrong. I've already said many times that I've fallen away. I've already left. I've also described things that could pull me back, including a hard return to traditionalism.

Slavery only came into the conversation relevant to the infallibility of the Bible, along with contradictions. It's far from a silver bullet.

Regarding the Catholic Church being the One.... etc. I absolutely believe it started that way. Do I believe it's the only way to salvation currently, absolutely not.

Rabbit holes and other issues are plenty in the Church, now, and in the past. It's just lazy and protectionist to avoid discourse on them. Ignoring the wrongs within the Church, lack of questioning, and blind faith (in the Church, not Christ) are in part responsible for the evils like pedophilia that exist in the Church today.

PS... I'm almost 50... I started pitching fast balls at Priest in grade school. I am still friends with the two biggest recipients. Good guys, great priests, unafraid of questions, and unafraid to question. So no, not just discovering anything, and not looking for a way out.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Ha. Bag on Wiki all you want. It doesn't diminish the facts. If you believe the links factually incorrect, please feel free argue. Most of the data are simple facts and accepted history (not slanted subjective info). Even if you can find a few cracks, the evidence is overwhelming.

And like I said, I can provide "deeper" reading recommendations. But again, feel free to tell me what Wiki gets wrong.

I was being too cure and do agree with most of what is said there. But we both know that a 2 page summary of a bunch of different sources isn't going to settle a complex debate like that.

So what is the main issue: Did the Catholic Church have a teaching on slavery that (1) changed throughout time (2) in a way that contradicted the early teaching?

I don't think so. I think that its earlier position was something like, "well its theoretically fine as long as...., but human beings can never ...."

As time went on, it was more and more clear on the prohibitions as they were thought through in different circumstances.

I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that theologians won't make any of the distinctions they used to, and just say its always equally wrong, because they are nire afraid of being misunderstood than being technically accurate in the minutia with this subject.

Rabbit holes and other issues are plenty in the Church, now, and in the past. It's just lazy and protectionist to avoid discourse on them. Ignoring the wrongs within the Church, lack of questioning, and blind faith (in the Church, not Christ) are in part responsible for the evils like pedophilia that exist in the Church today.

I think that pedophilia and technical debates on these kind of questions are apples and oranges. But I sympathize. One of the obvious fruits of lying when you hold an office is to discredit that office. But that is one of the reasons traditionalists try to look as much as they can for answers that exist apart from the particular person talking in a particular time. What we want should be timeless.

And I also agree that the lazy, oversimplified, and fanatical way that some in the Church understand the Church's teaching authority is PARTLY responsible for the mess the Church is in. But the larger part obviously lies with the people who are actually doing the horrible things, though, or covering them up.

 

[Irish YJ]

I was being too cure and do agree with most of what is said there. But we both know that a 2 page summary of a bunch of different sources isn't going to settle a complex debate like that.

So what is the main issue: Did the Catholic Church have a teaching on slavery that (1) changed throughout time (2) in a way that contradicted the early teaching?

I don't think so. I think that its earlier position was something like, "well its theoretically fine as long as...., but human beings can never ...."

As time went on, it was more and more clear on the prohibitions as they were thought through in different circumstances.

I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that theologians won't make any of the distinctions they used to, and just say its always equally wrong, because they are nire afraid of being misunderstood than being technically accurate in the minutia with this subject.

However you want to frame up the issue over time, I'm not sure how you can characterize PJP2 in 1995, to PG9, as not changing, and not contradicting. If that is your fallback, then you're saying the Church still believes in servitude and other softer forms of slavery at minimum.

I think that pedophilia and technical debates on these kind of questions are apples and oranges. But I sympathize. One of the obvious fruits of lying when you hold an office is to discredit that office. But that is one of the reasons traditionalists try to look as much as they can for answers that exist apart from the particular person talking in a particular time. What we want should be timeless.

And I also agree that the lazy, oversimplified, and fanatical way that some in the Church understand the Church's teaching authority is PARTLY responsible for the mess the Church is in. But the larger part obviously lies with the people who are actually doing the horrible things, though, or covering them up.

Yes, pedophilia has zero to do with slavery. It has everything to do however with the flock's blind faith in it's clergy though. Absolutely the larger blame resides with the perpetrators and those covering it up. I'd say though, a large reason why it has flourished in the Church for so long, is because of blind faith in, and the reluctance to question and/or report those who utilize their position to commit and cover up those crimes.

I know you think I'm down on all things Catholic. I'm not. I'm only down on the things that should be questioned. I love the Bible, but obviously look at it different than most. I love the Church, but unafraid to question it, and I certainly expect more from it.

 

[Domina Nostra]

However you want to frame up the issue over time, I'm not sure how you can characterize PJP2 in 1995, to PG9, as not changing, and not contradicting. If that is your fallback, then you're saying the Church still believes in servitude and other softer forms of slavery at minimum.





Yes, pedophilia has zero to do with slavery. It has everything to do however with the flock's blind faith in it's clergy though. Absolutely the larger blame resides with the perpetrators and those covering it up. I'd say though, a large reason why it has flourished in the Church for so long, is because of blind faith in, and the reluctance to question and/or report those who utilize their position to commit and cover up those crimes.

I know you think I'm down on all things Catholic. I'm not. I'm only down on the things that should be questioned. I love the Bible, but obviously look at it different than most. I love the Church, but unafraid to question it, and I certainly expect more from it.

What I'd say is that not everything that comes out of the mouth of a Pope is an accurate expression of the timeless teaching of the Church on an issue. I'm a Vatican I guy when it comes to tightly hemming in papal infallibility.

And I don't think you are down on all things Catholic. That's not how you come off at all. And I apologize if I don't make any sense. I write between tasks at work and so I get kind of stream of consciousness.

 

[ickythump1225]

For those that despair at the state of the Church just know that this was prophesied and foretold in several Marian apparitions:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/StJ4ERSn6KI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d2xiLtZuoUg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/97dyZQ-Y5RE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Great Apostasy may be upon us. It doesn't make it any easier but just know that in the end Christ will triumph.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

cc: YJ

cc: YJ

380 Baptist pastors and volunteers have been credibly accused of sexually abusing 700 victims over the last 20 years.

If only their pastors were allowed to marry...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

CS Lewis on the dangers of onanism:

 

[zelezo vlk]

Truth

 

[BGIF]

380 Baptist pastors and volunteers have been credibly accused of sexually abusing 700 victims over the last 20 years.

If only their pastors were allowed to marry...

Really, ... the "gee mom but all the OTHER kids do it, too" card.

BS!


BTW, he article is about Southern Baptists not Baptists as noted above. Two different denominations.

Once upon a time they were the same but in 1845 the Southern faction walked out of the annual meeting over a motion to ban one person owning another. 150 years later in 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention issued a paragraph apology which was essentially, "whoops our bad".

More relevant, Southern Baptists Churches are independent not hierarchical like the Catholic Churches. There is no management structure that covered up abuses of children and then not only kept the identity of known sexual predators from legal authorities but reassigned them to other congregations so they could abuse more children and their families. There were no Orders that covered up to protect their financial resources. Nor were there dioceses that did the same.

Sexual predation is heinous. Those that enabled it are criminal conspirators and should be prosecuted along with the predators.

 

[wizards8507]

Really, ... the "gee mom but all the OTHER kids do it, too" card.



BS!

You're smarter than that. Nobody is trying to justify anything. Whiskeyjack is debunking the narrative that Catholic priests are uniquely likely to be predators. Many people suggest that allowing priests to marry would eliminate sexual abuse in the Church, but this article points out that sexual abuse occurs even more frequently in a particular denomination that does have married ministers.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Really, ... the "gee mom but all the OTHER kids do it, too" card.

BS!

IrishYJ and I have been involved in a debate as to whether Catholic priests are uniquely prone to pederasty, or whether the Catholic sexual abuse scandal is consistent with the larger pattern of such abuse coming to light via the #MeToo movement, etc. YJ argues for the former, citing clerical celibacy as the cause. I've argued for the latter, citing the John Jay report. I shared this article here as evidence against YJ's position (which is why the subject line mentions him specifically); not to imply the Church has been unfairly maligned.

BTW, he article is about Southern Baptists not Baptists as noted above. Two different denominations.

At 15 million members, the SBC is the largest Protestant denomination in the US, so it's usually safe to assume that the term "Baptist" is a shorthand reference to them.

More relevant, Southern Baptists Churches are independent not hierarchical like the Catholic Churches. There is no management structure that covered up abuses of children and then not only kept the identity of known sexual predators from legal authorities but reassigned them to other congregations so they could abuse more children and their families. There were no Orders that covered up to protect their financial resources. Nor were there dioceses that did the same.

Agreed. Though a lack of hierarchical structure is a big reason why the prevalence of sexual predation among other churches and our public schools gets far less publicity than the Church's scandals.

Sexual predation is heinous. Those that enabled it are criminal conspirators and should be prosecuted along with the predators.

Agreed! I'm on record in this thread stating that bishops and cardinals who enabled this sort of behavior ought to be laicized and publicly executed--either via hanging in St. Peter's Square or by tying them to mill stones and throwing them in the Tiber. What gave you the impression I was arguing for lenience here?

 

[Legacy]

From the Houston Chronicle' and the San Antonio Express-News' three part series, here is Part II:

Offend, then repeat
Southern Baptist churches hired dozens of leaders previously accused of sex offenses

The practice of hiring pastors with disturbing pasts is part of a broader problem of sex abuse at Southern Baptist churches across the United States, the newspapers' investigation shows.

At least 700 people — nearly all of them children — reported being sexually abused by those who worked or volunteered at Southern Baptist churches since 1998. Records show that about 220 Southern Baptist church leaders and volunteers have been convicted of sex crimes or took plea deals. The charges range from possessing child pornography to raping children.

Can their victims sue the SBC?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Can their victims sue the SBC?

It depends on what the SBC knew and how involved it was in the hiring and placement of such pastors. As BGIF alluded to above, the SBC (like most Protestant denominations) is much more decentralized/ less hierarchical than the Catholic Church, so I'd expect that corporate liability in most of these cases will be limited to the particular churches where they occurred.

 

[Legacy]

It depends on what the SBC knew and how involved it was in the hiring and placement of such pastors. As BGIF alluded to above, the SBC (like most Protestant denominations) is much more decentralized/ less hierarchical than the Catholic Church, so I'd expect that corporate liability in most of these cases will be limited to the particular churches where they occurred.

The investigative article and the independence of their churches led me to ask the question. From the article:

The SBC had an opportunity to stop some of the abuse.

In 2007, at their annual meeting in San Antonio, SBC leaders considered a proposal to prevent sexual abuse by creating a database of ministers who had been credibly accused of sexual misconduct. But when the SBC met again in 2008, the committee assigned to study the proposal rejected it, saying it had no authority to compel churches to report sex offenders to the SBC.

With no centralized method of tracking sex abuse at Southern Baptist churches, the Chronicle and the Express-News spent months developing their own database of Baptist offenders by collecting news stories and public records to find perpetrators and gather details about their cases. Studies show most sexual assault victims don't contact police, which means the true number of offenders may well be higher.

From any cynical viewpoint, one might say the SBC in not establishing a central database and with the lack of hierarchical structure, they escaped lawsuits by victims or at least made it more difficult to sue. Whether they had an obligation to report is another question. Certainly the two hundred that were convicted was known but not centralized. But the other five hundred plus take an investigation by media? Sounds like the victims were sh** out of luck. Statute of limitations is another question. Who laicizes them? Sounds like a pedophiles' heaven.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

From any cynical viewpoint, one might say the SBC in not establishing a central database and with the lack of hierarchical structure, they escaped lawsuits by victims or at least made it more difficult to sue. Whether they had an obligation to report is another question. Certainly the two hundred that were convicted was known but not centralized. But the other five hundred plus take an investigation by media?

Morally culpable? Absolutely. Legally? Probably not. As that quote demonstrates, the SBC is comparably "hands off" when it comes to individual churches. Some of this is just baked into Protestant ecclesiology, but it has the added benefit of firewalling off the Convention from the liabilities of any individual church.