Rorate Caeli

Poll alert: "Does the Pope bear some personal responsibility for the sex abuse scandal?"

Please vote in this poll.

6 comments:

Brad C said...

Is the implication that there is a "right" answer that readers of RC all agree on, and that therefore we should all vote in the poll to ensure the "right" answer comes out on top? What, then, is the "right" answer to this poll question? Right now, I am so conflicted over the whole thing, that I don't know what to think.

Anonymous said...

Depends... which pope?

Jacob said...

While I am always glad to see polls relating to the Catholic Church getting attention from orthodox Catholics who are actually informed on the issues at hand, I don't think this is right for Rorate. Leave it to the more 'action' oriented blogs and stay with what you guys do best, the incisive essays and reports on the Holy Mass and the state of the Church in the secular world.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Does the Pope bear any personal responsibility for the sex abuse crisis? Not the current one. But I think a strong argument could be made that John Paul II does.

Anonymous said...

Yes. He and his predecessors. According to Randy Engel's well researched and must have book, as Cardinal Ratzinger he was not exactly blameless. And as the Supreme Pontiff of the One True Church, he has both the power and authority to actually do something other than wringing his hands and mouthing tired and worn apologies.

Delphina

LeonG said...

It is incomprehensible that such a question is posed. The entire succession of post-conciliar papacies are responsible because they have attempted to impose a liberal modernist pastoral & liturgical programme on the church. The growing problem of paedophile abuse of children was known in the 1950s & placed before successive papacies from Pope Paul VI (RIP) onwards. Nothing very effective was done as the objective evidence demonstrates. This is true of countless shocking liturgical abuses too.

The current pope has known about this problem certainly since the 1970s & has been in a position to take effective measures to stop it. Obviously, as the objective evidence indicates, what he may have done has been found gravely wanting. This is because the idea was to protect the culpable first & not the innocent victims. No one can escape this fact.

Had the proper policies been adopted sooner this would have been dealt with firmly with fewer sinister consequences. The laicisation of those guilty & their prosecution should have taken place. This has been provided for for many years. These are criminal offences we are talking about not some childish acts of deviance. Many here & elsewhere conveniently overlook this.

Apart from that the alternative of removing offending parties from active clerical & episcopal life with therapy & care isolated from society where the abuses occurred would also have proven very effective. This was proposed in the 1960s and has always been ignored subsequently.

However, it can be observed in the post-conciliar church, there has consistently been reluctance to condemn where it is necessary & to take strong already recommended disciplinary action, except against traditional Roman Catholics. This is undeniable also as it has been discussed here as well as elsewhere and demonstrated on many occasions.