In the delightfully crunchy world of debate, it seems apparent to me that the closer you are to the tactics of the Westboro Baptist Church, the closer you are to being entirely wrong. This is a concept towards which I have no doubt that my atheist friends will nod in earnest. After all, the level of intellectual destruction it takes to reduce one’s entire theology to the slogan “God Hates Fags” is embarrassing, to the point that the entire universe seems sadder for WBC’s very existence.

So it is odd—and I pretend with a passion that it is not simultaneously and sickeningly fascinating—that we sometimes see others joining forces with the WBC. What dark power could possibly exist on earth strong enough to bring about such a cosmic convergence? Why, The One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church!

You see the Church—may She blossom, build more cathedrals, and continue being the world’s largest charity—has the remarkable habit of unifying friends and enemies alike. Thus we see record numbers of Anglicans and Lutherans becoming Catholic, incredibly improved relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and, in general, great strides towards Christian unity, while Evangelicals, Agnostics and New Agers all sit together on the sidelines with identically incensed “you-don’t-allow-birth-control?” expressions on their faces. The Wiccan and the Darwinist can set aside their mutual contempt for each other and smoke a few bowls over the Church’s position on abortion. It happens.

But my point is that these days, any argument with a Catholic can be neatly avoided—and often is by the Church's most vigilant opponents—by devolving to the Westboro Baptist Church’s self-proclaimed “air-tight, three word case against the Catholic Church”: priests rape boys.
 

Reason to be Catholic #1334542: We have all the right enemies.

The problem is, as others have noted here before, this is a bad argument against the Church. Actually, it is not an argument at all. It is specifically the avoidance of any argument. But nevertheless:

If a man commits a crime as heinous and hideous as child molestation, he deserves all the mistrust and disgust thrown at him. If that man is in a position of care, as a priest is, that same man deserves all the more mistrust, excommunication, and punishment prescribed. But if a stereotype is to be applied to an entire group of men, it follows that that group of men must commit the act more than any one else.

To use a more benign example, if the stereotype that “women are great multitaskers!” is to be a sensible stereotype, women must be greater multitaskers than men. If men are equally good at multitasking, or better than women at multitasking, the stereotype is empty. All well and good, but apply that same logic to priests and watch the world flip out.

The truth is that child-molestation is not a Catholic problem. It is a problem of Western culture in general. As Newsweek pointed out in their 2011 article "Mean Men", “experts say there’s simply no data to support the claim [that the Church is “a refuge for pederasts”] at all...based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. ‘We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else,’ said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.”

Dr. Thomas Plante, a Professor of Psychology and an Adjunct Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, says “available research suggests that approximately two to five percent of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor” a percentage which “is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to eight percent.”

A child is more likely to be molested by his parents, his neighbors, or family friends than a priest, yet there exists no stereotype about these groups. According to the US Department of Education’s report on the issue, entitled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests.” Why, one wonders, in the ever-present debates over the pay of teachers, public school programs and the like, is there no brilliant, hip man who stands up and says, “Yes, but everything you’re saying is suspect because teachers rape children." Why is there no stereotype against public-school teachers?

First of all, because, unlike American public schools and the culture in general, the Catholic Church has made an unprecedented effort to destroy the evil culture of child molestation. If you’ve ever worked for the Catholic Church, you know of what I speak. It can be hell, going through the various training programs in place to completely rid the Church of child molestation. Ninety-four percent of the abuse incidents reported to the Catholic Church from 1950 through 2009 took place before 1990, and there’s a reason for it. Already having less of a problem than the general culture, the Catholic Church has done more than any other institution to get rid of the problem entirely. All of this meant staying in the media spotlight. We did not avoid evil, we fought it, and we let the world see, because we are held to a higher standard than the world. So the Church bore the brunt of the blame, and has ‘cleaned house’ tremendously, while the public-schools are rarely discussed, and are still a major problem. And this is good, because one abuse-case is one too many, and I don’t give a damn how embarrassed it makes Catholics, all this attention the Church has paid to the issue—if it’s what it takes to keep children safe, it’s worth it.

But I fear that the real reason there exists a completely baseless stereotype against priests is the same reason the WBC has a stereotype against priests: It’s easier to make up a stereotype and name-call than deal with the claims of the Catholic Church. If people who make this claim really do wish to do The WBC, let ‘em. It’s so obviously ridiculous that it can only ever mean a Catholic has won the argument.

So how to win an argument with a Catholic? Not through empty stereotypes. You win by arguing.
 
 
Originally posted at Bad Catholic. Used with author's permission.
(Image credit: Lifehack)

Yesterday morning, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science Facebook page posted the following bombshell:

"According to the new laws, revealing or receiving confidential Vatican information is now punishable by up to two years in prison, while newly defined sex crimes against children carry a sentence of up to twelve years. Because all sex crimes are kept confidential, there is no longer a legal way for Vatican officials to report sex crimes."

This was startling stuff, and of course it wasn't long before Dawkins' devoteees began to chime in. One fan compared the Vatican to Islamic Sharia law:

"Catholic law, as with Sharia law, should NEVER be above the law of the land! If Vatican officials want to report the crimes of priests, surley [sic] if they leave the Vatican, they are no longer bound by their medieval laws, and can report with complete immunity to those barbaric laws?"

Another atheist commenter sees this is as just one more reason why Catholics should be leaving the Church:

This is why people should be flocking away from Catholicism, but nooooo. Who cares if your children are safe, as long as you have a spot in Heaven! Stuff like this is why even if I could bring myself to believe in a sky wizard, I would refuse to worship a God so messed up!

As of this morning, this post had 4,584 "likes" and was shared more than 7,804 times on Facebook. Atheists definitely know how to get the word out.

The only problem is that this article came from a parody web site (similar to the Onion) called Newslo. The site describes itself this way:

"Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find the line between fact and commentary."

Unlike the Richard Dawkins Foundation Facebook page, Newslo has a button you can select that highlights the bits in an article that are fact-based. At the time of this writing there is no indication that the Dawkins Foundation was aware that this bit of Vatican "news" is not.
 
 
Originally posted at Catholic Answers. Used with permission.
(Image credit: Charisma News)

When people hear that my husband and I began exploring Catholicism in 2005, one of the first questions they often ask is, “What about the sexual abuse scandals? Didn’t that scare you away from the Church?”

They’re usually surprised when I report that the answer is no; in fact, the scandals and the negative media coverage actually increased my faith in the Church. Here’s why:

Getting the Facts Straight

 
One of the first things I did was to look into the numbers behind the sexual abuse cases. Was I heading into an institution that was filled with sexual predators, as the media would have me believe? I was shocked to find that, by even the most anti-Catholic organizations’ estimates, only about 2 percent of Catholic priests had even been accused of sexual misconduct. And certainly the cover-ups by members of the hierarchy were deplorable, but my research led me to see that that was common in all organizations, not just the Church. To list just one of the many examples, in Washington there were 159 coaches accused of sexual misconduct with minors over a 10-year period. Ninety-eight of them continued to coach or teach. And how did the school hierarchies respond? To quote this article:

"When faced with complaints against coaches, school officials often failed to investigate them and sometimes ignored a law requiring them to report suspected abuse to police. Many times, they disregarded a state law requiring them to report misconduct to the state education office.
 
Even after getting caught, many men were allowed to continue coaching because school administrators promised to keep their disciplinary records secret if the coaches simply left. Some districts paid tens of thousands of dollars to get coaches to leave. Other districts hired coaches they knew had records of sexual misconduct."

In another example, Carol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan looked at 225 cases of abuse by educators in New York City. Shakeshaft reported:

"All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package."

I could go on, but you get the idea. After investigating the issue, I found that, sadly, there is nothing different going on in the Catholic Church than in any organization where men are in contact with children, and that it’s an unfortunate fact of human nature—and not something unique within the Church—that people in hierarchy tend to look the other way when it comes to bad conduct by the people who report to them.

However, unlike the coaches or the school teachers, the Catholic clergy were supposed to be men of God. What are we supposed to make of it when even they commit atrocities like sexual abuse? Pondering that question was one of the key things that led me decide to become Catholic.

Understanding Who Guides the Church

 
While I was researching Catholicism, I seemed to be surrounded by the message that the Catholic hierarchy was corrupt to the core. Not only were negative stories about the Church splashed all over the media, but I’d happened to pick up some historical biographies from times and places that were heavily Catholic, and many of those books gave the impression that every bishop who ever lived had a personal harem that he only left long enough to go steal from the poor and kick puppies. I knew that these were heavily biased accounts that not only exaggerated a lot of the bad deeds, but that also overlooked all the incredible priests, bishops and popes throughout the ages who radiated the love of Christ. However, being surrounded by all this negativity did remind me that not every Catholic is a saint, and that sometimes even people in the hierarchy do bad things.

I found myself in a strange place: On the one hand, I was blown away by the wisdom I’d found in this Church. Reading the great works of Catholic theology left me feeling like I’d discovered the secret owner’s manual to the human life; the Catholic worldview was like the box top that made all the puzzle pieces of the human experience come together in a coherent whole. In the Catechism I saw a seamless, perfectly consistent moral code that was as compelling as it was counterintuitive—and when I tried following it, I found a peace and joy that I have never encountered before.

Yet on the other hand, I had all these reminders that Catholics are sinners too sometimes—that, in fact, even their leaders aren’t exempt from committing some of the most deplorable sins known to man.

It was when these two things collided that I realized: I don’t think people can do this on their own.

Ironically, the more the culture tried to paint the Catholic Church as full of sinful people, the more convinced I became of its truth. I didn’t believe that ordinary people could come up with a set of teachings that contained unparalleled wisdom; maintain them consistently across all times and places, even despite tremendous pressure to recant; and then keep it all going for two thousand years. And even if the media had been right that the priesthood and episcopate were full of corrupt and immoral people, that would have only made the situation more inexplicable in purely human terms—corrupt and immoral people are always the first to sell out and preach whatever message the culture wants to hear in order to get more power for themselves.

In short, I saw something divine at work here.

The Catholic Church has claimed all along that this is an institution “powered by” God, so to speak. It was founded by Jesus Christ, not humans, and a divine Force continues to guide it to this day. Just as he did with Sacred Scripture, God uses imperfect people to proclaim his perfect truth. It’s a crazy claim, particularly hard to believe in this age when atheistic materialism dominates the culture. But I think that the constant negative portrayals of Catholics in popular culture can be a boon to our faith in this department. Because every time the world reminds us that our natures are no less fallen than anyone else’s, it’s a reminder that our Church, its sacraments, and its teachings could not exist without Someone helping us out.
 
 
Originally published at the National Catholic Register. Used with author's permission.
(Image credit: Jeremy Sarber)

The announcement that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the papacy on Feb. 28 caused many in the media to revisit one of the major issues of his pontificate: the clergy sexual abuse scandal that dominated the news for nearly a decade in the United States, Australia, and parts of Europe.

The record of Pope Benedict XVI has also come under scrutiny, with many in the secular media repeating a discredited clam that the pope had failed to act properly in dealing with the crisis and may even have been complicit in cover-ups and transferring abuser priests.

What is the truth? Here are some frequently asked questions.

1. What did Pope Benedict XVI do specifically as pope to prevent further cases of sexual abuse by clergy?

 
For those willing to make a fair assessment of the pope’s actions regarding the sexual abuse crisis, the last eight years have brought immense progress in combating the scourge of this problem in the Church. The pope was not afraid of controversy, most notably in the actions he took against Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ. He spoke out, quite plainly and with increasing passion, on the scandals. He brought to Rome the bishops of Ireland and Germany to receive full reports on their actions to implement effective norms and programs to safeguard children in every area of the Church’s life and ministry. He spoke bluntly about the crisis to the bishops of the United States during his visit in 2008, stating:

Many of you have spoken to me of the enormous pain that your communities have suffered when clerics have betrayed their priestly obligations and duties by such gravely immoral behavior. As you strive to eliminate this evil wherever it occurs, you may be assured of the prayerful support of God’s people throughout the world. Rightly, you attach priority to showing compassion and care to the victims. It is your God-given responsibility as pastors to bind up the wounds caused by every breach of trust, to foster healing, to promote reconciliation and to reach out with loving concern to those so seriously wronged.

During this time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) mandated that every diocese implement basic norms for handling cases, subject to the specific laws of each country, and imposed time frames for their implementation. The norms for all of the world's dioceses are based on the norms first established for the Church in the United States in 2002 and that have proven immensely successful in creating a safe environment for children and those serving the Church and in reducing drastically the number of cases each year. Cristina Odone, a columnist for the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, concluded that "this Pope has done more than any other churchman to address the issue of priestly child abuse."

2. Did the pope ever apologize to the victims of clergy sexual abuse?

 
Yes. Pope Benedict has made public and private apologies for the tragedy of clergy sexual abuse. He has privately apologized to victims in his sessions with them. His public apologies have included his visit to the United States in 2008. During the flight to Washington, D.C., he announced that the issue of the sexual abuse crisis was not going to be given little attention or that it was some mere afterthought. It was the first major topic of discussion for the pope and remained so throughout the visit.

Second, the pontiff established a willingness to speak in unmistakable terms of penance for the Church. He says plainly, "I am ashamed and we will do everything possible to ensure that this does not happen in future."

The pope then detailed a threefold plan for dealing with the crisis. This echoes the sound policies that had been adopted in the United States and that he has, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, helped install.

The first point was a concern with justice. He affirmed that the Church "will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry; it is absolutely incompatible, and whoever is really guilty of being a pedophile cannot be a priest." Another part of justice is to do everything possible to bring true justice to the victims of abuse. This is in keeping with the Church's understanding of the cardinal virtue described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good."

The pope then noted the pastoral level, in that the victims of abuse "will need healing and help and assistance and reconciliation," but he added his belief that "the bishops and the priests and all Catholic people in the United States will do whatever possible to help, to assist, to heal."

Finally, he made note of the institutional reform of the seminarians. He had approved a visitation of the seminaries in the United States and was determined that those admitted to the seminary should be "sound persons" who demonstrate "a deep personal life in Christ and who have a deep sacramental life."

One of the most pointed and public apologies issued by the pontiff was his "Letter to the Irish." He wrote to the people of Ireland:

You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel.

3. Did Pope Benedict ever meet with abuse victims?

 
Yes. Pope Benedict has met with abuse victims on numerous occasions. One of the most notable was in 2008 during his visit to the United States.

4. What role did the pope have in helping the Church in the United States deal with the sex abuse crisis?

 
From the time that the bishops of the United States began grappling fully with the problem of clergy sexual abuse in 2002, they were encouraged and assisted in their work by Cardinal Ratzinger, who was then head of the CDF. The bishops introduced the so-called Dallas Charter and the imposition of the Essential Norms, by which dioceses created safe environments for children, launched a "zero tolerance" policy regarding abuse, and worked to improve the formation of priests and seminary system. The results have been nothing short of dramatic. The audits by the National Review Board found that in the last years the numbers of annually reported cases of sexual abuse of minors in the entire Church in the United States had declined to single digits. Cardinal Ratzinger was instrumental in bringing the bishops to Rome to report to Pope John Paul II and also in streamlining the approval process by the Holy See.

5. What did he do as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to push for reform in the Church’s handling of cases?

 
Cardinal Ratzinger became increasingly convinced of the need to rid the Church of what he called the "filth" of abuse and emerged as one of the Vatican's most dedicated leaders in confronting the growing crisis.

As Cardinal Ratzinger and his staff became aware of the breadth and depth of the abuse problem, he underwent what John Allen, a longtime commentator on Vatican matters, called Ratzinger's "conversion experience."

At the heart of that "conversion" was the CDF's increasing immersion in the clergy abuse cases after Pope John Paul II assigned it responsibility to oversee all of the cases worldwide.

On May 18, 2001, the pope promulgated an apostolic letter called Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela ("The Safeguarding of the Sacraments"). The document, which had been in drafting and broad consultation for several years, was most noteworthy for the fact that it confirmed the CDF's responsibility for disciplinary review and action regarding violations associated with abuse, including the solicitation to a sexual sin (a sin "against the sixth commandment") under the pretext of the confession if involving the confessor himself or the granting of absolution to "an accomplice" in a sexual sin by the confessor.

It also said that it reserved to the CDF the responsibility for reviewing sexual violations "committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years." Such acts are "to be punished according to the gravity of the offense, not excluding dismissal or deposition." In Canon law, the age of a minor was listed as under 16 years. In the 1990s the U.S. bishops had asked that the age of a minor be defined as under 18 so that it would match state law in defining the upper age of minors. The apostolic letter also addressed a long-standing request by U.S. bishops that the statute of limitations be lengthened, in this case for 10 years, rather than five, after the victim has reached his or her 18th birthday.

In short, what the apostolic letter did was require bishops to report cases of clergy sexual abuse to the CDF.

In a letter to the world's bishops at the time of the document’s release, Cardinal Ratzinger explained that while probable cases had to be reported to the CDF, the Congregation could allow the cases to be held in the local diocese or it could bring the case before its own tribunal.

While Canon Law, particularly canon 1395, has made clear that the sexual abuse of minors by clerics is a violation of law, the new procedures created a more effective process for the large number of cases being uncovered. By requiring that such cases be reported to Rome, it also addressed concerns that abuse cases were being handled differently in different dioceses and countries.

In his March 17, 2010 column for the National Catholic Reporter, John Allen said Cardinal Ratzinger and his staff "seemed driven by a convert's zeal to clean up the mess":

Of the 500-plus cases that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealt with prior to Benedict's election to the papacy, the substantial majority were returned to the local bishop authorizing immediate action against the accused priest – no canonical trial, no lengthy process, just swift removal from ministry and, often, expulsion from the priesthood. In a more limited number of cases, the congregation asked for a canonical trial, and in a few cases the congregation ordered the priest reinstated.

That marked a stark reversal from the initial insistence of Vatican officials, Ratzinger included, that in almost every instance the accused priest deserved the right to canonical trial. Having sifted through the evidence, Ratzinger and [Msgr. Charles J.] Scicluna apparently drew the conclusion that in many instances the proof was so overwhelming that immediate action was required.

Among insiders, the change of climate was dramatic.

These answers were compiled by Matthew Bunson who, with Greg Erlandson, authored Pope Benedict XVI and the Sexual Abuse Crisis: Working for Reform and Renewal (Our Sunday Visitor, 2010)
 
 
Originally published on the OSV Daily Take blog. Reprinted with author's permission.