And now the statistics for Germany--it's enough to make your mind reel. What were the people involved thinking? That it would remain covered-up forever? Why did no one in the church's bureaucratic organization stop and say, 'no, I won't be a part of the cover-up and I won't silence my voice or my conscience. I will speak up and speak out'. Just the fact that the church wanted to control how the research results were published/utilized is appalling--I quote: "because the church wanted to reserve its right to control the resulting research papers — and under certain circumstances even ban their publication". The church apparently believes its own hype--that it is judge, jury, and executioner with no accountability to anyone outside the church, and this way of looking at dealing with crime in the church is just plain arrogant and wrong. If I am a typical example of the faithful, my trust in the church to make intelligent and moral decisions is gone. Just plain gone. And sadly, I doubt that it will be coming back. I believe I do a better job of running my life and dealing with moral decisions than the church will ever do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/world/europe/german-church-sex-abuse-children.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
I'm guessing we'll getting the statistics for other involved countries soon, because there is nothing inherently 'American' about this scandal. It all has to do with the kingdom called the Vatican. Somehow in the midst of all the power and wealth, Christ and what he stood for fell by the wayside.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Sunday, September 9, 2018
Is there a civil war within the church now?
If you want to read more about the current sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church, these are some good links:
If there is a civil war within the church now, it is because it has brought it on itself. But the church can end the war by standing up for change. It can open the doors, let in the light, get rid of the careerism and bureaucracy. It can get rid of the wealth, prestige, and power that dominate the lives of many clergy. It can get rid of the holier than thou attitude. It can get back to the basics of Christ’s teaching. It just needs to do it.
Two good articles about the current sexual abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church
I read these articles and I try to find understanding in my mind and heart for the priests who have committed these atrocities against children. I find none. What I feel is anger and loathing; anger at the attempts to silence the victims and to pretend that the abuse did not happen, something the church can no longer do, and loathing for the sheer arrogance and belief that the faithful would accept the explanations for the bad behavior, move on, and forget about it. Maybe some of the faithful can do that; I cannot. If you read the first article, it talks about the sense of betrayal that is felt by many of the faithful, and how they might deal with that. Like married couples where one partner has betrayed the other by being unfaithful, it will be a long road back to re-establish trust in the person who committed the betrayal, if it ever happens. Likewise with the church; it will take a long time for the faithful to get over this, and I think that's the right reaction. I don't find it in myself to simply accept the explanations anymore. I want action. I want change. I want the pedophiles to pay for their crimes after having been tried as the criminals they are in a court of law. I want justice for the victims. And that is exactly what the second article is focused on--the criminal priests will not be let off the hook anymore. There will be aggressive criminal investigations, and rightly so. Thank God. This is not about persecution of the Catholic church; it is about persecution of those men who call themselves priests, when in reality they are nothing more than common criminals, who have lived off the good will and economic support of the faithful. They deserve nothing less than life in prison.
I am angry at myself for buying into some of the ideas that the church pushed over the years, especially when I was a teenager. That the word of male priests was somehow 'law'. That unmarried male priests could tell us how to be married, could tell married women what their 'duty' was toward their husbands, could push warped ideas about sex and love on us as teenagers, that only led to unnecessary guilt. I've always thought it strange that sex was promoted as an evil activity for the unmarried to engage in, but that once you were married, it was suddenly holy and good. How many marriages in my generation suffered as a result of that way of thinking? It would have been far better to have focused on self-respect and on the importance of respecting others' wishes when it came to sex and to so many other things. I no longer buy into any of these ideas, but when we were teenagers, it was excruciating at times to listen to this folly. There was a period (post Vatican II) when the doors seemed to fly open and the church seemed to be on the path toward true enlightenment, when it felt as though change was in the air and anything was possible--male priests could perhaps marry if they wanted to, women could perhaps become priests, and so on. But no, none of it came to pass. And why not, when you think about it? Jesus Christ was friends with men and women. He had the utmost respect for women. I have always said that it would not bother me in the least if we found out that he had married and had children. His mission on this earth would have been the same.
Going to mass and sharing in that fellowship are still important to me, although I find myself torn now in a way I never was before. I sit there in the pew and feel the anger inside of me, anger because not one of the priests in my church ever comments on the current scandal. They should. They should be talking about it, opening the doors for the faithful to talk about it, and to talk about how betrayed they feel by the criminal priests and by the church for protecting these priests and covering up their crimes. How could these pedophile priests stand in the pulpits Sunday after Sunday preaching what they no longer (and perhaps never) believed in? Telling the faithful how to behave. How in good conscience do you do that to the faithful, good people who are essentially supporting you financially? How can you stand up there and lie? And how can so many priests stand up there now and defend the blowhard Trump--who stands for all that Christ did not stand for? How in good conscience can they do that? I am currently at odds with the church, with its patriarchal attitudes and its careerist bureaucrats, with its arrogance and blaming of others, and with its lies. I am fed up and disappointed in its support of Trump where that is the case. I may go to mass, but I am now a resister. I no longer buy what they're selling. If they don't want to discuss what's going on and face the wrath of the faithful, then they can skip the sermons and the singing. They can shut their mouths and just celebrate the mass--quietly, solemnly, seriously. And then let us go about our lives. I for one won't miss the preaching.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/opinion/couples-therapy-catholic-church.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/nyregion/catholic-sex-abuse.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I am angry at myself for buying into some of the ideas that the church pushed over the years, especially when I was a teenager. That the word of male priests was somehow 'law'. That unmarried male priests could tell us how to be married, could tell married women what their 'duty' was toward their husbands, could push warped ideas about sex and love on us as teenagers, that only led to unnecessary guilt. I've always thought it strange that sex was promoted as an evil activity for the unmarried to engage in, but that once you were married, it was suddenly holy and good. How many marriages in my generation suffered as a result of that way of thinking? It would have been far better to have focused on self-respect and on the importance of respecting others' wishes when it came to sex and to so many other things. I no longer buy into any of these ideas, but when we were teenagers, it was excruciating at times to listen to this folly. There was a period (post Vatican II) when the doors seemed to fly open and the church seemed to be on the path toward true enlightenment, when it felt as though change was in the air and anything was possible--male priests could perhaps marry if they wanted to, women could perhaps become priests, and so on. But no, none of it came to pass. And why not, when you think about it? Jesus Christ was friends with men and women. He had the utmost respect for women. I have always said that it would not bother me in the least if we found out that he had married and had children. His mission on this earth would have been the same.
Going to mass and sharing in that fellowship are still important to me, although I find myself torn now in a way I never was before. I sit there in the pew and feel the anger inside of me, anger because not one of the priests in my church ever comments on the current scandal. They should. They should be talking about it, opening the doors for the faithful to talk about it, and to talk about how betrayed they feel by the criminal priests and by the church for protecting these priests and covering up their crimes. How could these pedophile priests stand in the pulpits Sunday after Sunday preaching what they no longer (and perhaps never) believed in? Telling the faithful how to behave. How in good conscience do you do that to the faithful, good people who are essentially supporting you financially? How can you stand up there and lie? And how can so many priests stand up there now and defend the blowhard Trump--who stands for all that Christ did not stand for? How in good conscience can they do that? I am currently at odds with the church, with its patriarchal attitudes and its careerist bureaucrats, with its arrogance and blaming of others, and with its lies. I am fed up and disappointed in its support of Trump where that is the case. I may go to mass, but I am now a resister. I no longer buy what they're selling. If they don't want to discuss what's going on and face the wrath of the faithful, then they can skip the sermons and the singing. They can shut their mouths and just celebrate the mass--quietly, solemnly, seriously. And then let us go about our lives. I for one won't miss the preaching.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/opinion/couples-therapy-catholic-church.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/nyregion/catholic-sex-abuse.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Book recommendation--a biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder
I am reading Prairie Fires: The American Dreams of Laura Ingalls Wilder, Caroline Fraser's biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was the author of the Little House on the Prairie series of children's books. I'm about halfway through Fraser's biography, and I think it's a masterpiece of writing. It's not only Wilder's biography, but a considerably comprehensive description of the climate during the latter part of the 19th century and how it impacted on the lives of the pioneer settlers. There appeared to be considerable climate change during the latter part of the 19th century, much of it probably man-made due to poor agricultural practices. I googled 'droughts in the US--19th century', and this is what I found on Wikipedia:
19th Century
There were at least three major droughts in 19th-century North America: one from the mid-1850s to the mid-1860s, one in the 1870s, and one in the 1890s (refs). There was also a drought around 1820; the periods from 1816 to 1844 and from 1849 to 1880 were rather dry, and the 19th century overall was a dry century for the Great Plains. While there was little rain-gauge data from the mid-19th century in the middle of the US, there were plenty of trees, and tree-ring data showed evidence of a major drought from around 1856 to around 1865. Native Americans were hard hit, as the bison they depended upon on the Plains moved to river valleys in search of water, and those valleys were full of natives and settlers alike. The river valleys were also home to domestic livestock, which competed against the bison for food. The result was starvation for many of the bison.
The 1870–1877 drought brought with it a major swarm of Rocky Mountain Locusts, as droughts benefit locusts, making plants more nutritious and edible to locusts and reducing diseases that harm locusts. Locusts also grow more quickly during a drought and gather in small spots of lush vegetation, enabling them to swarm, facts which contributed to the ruin of much of the farmland in the American West. The evidence for this drought is also primarily in tree-ring, rather than rain gauge, data.
The 1890s drought, between 1890 and 1896, was the first to be widely and adequately recorded by rain gauges, with much of the American West having been settled. Railroads promised land to people willing to settle it, and the period between 1877 and 1890 was wetter than usual, leading to unrealistic expectations of land productivity. The amount of land required to support a family in more arid regions was already larger than the amount that could realistically be irrigated by a family, but this fact was made more obvious by the drought, leading to emigration from recently settled lands. The Federal government started to assist with irrigation with the 1902 Reclamation Act.
Laura Ingalls Wilder was born in 1867, and her life, along with her family's, were strongly affected by the droughts and harsh weather at that time, as well as the horrific Rocky Mountain locust plagues that destroyed crops (and livelihoods) and homes alike. Wikipedia reports (and I cite): Sightings often placed their swarms in numbers far larger than any other locust species, with one famous sighting in 1875 estimated at 198,000 square miles (510,000 km2) in size (greater than the area of California), weighing 27.5 million tons and consisting of some 12.5 trillion insects. If that wouldn't scare you if you saw it coming, I don't know what would. I imagine that most farmers thought the apocalypse had arrived. Fraser describes how the dead bodies of these locusts (now extinct, luckily for us) would lie on the railroad tracks and clog the rails, preventing the trains from running.
When I read about the difficulties that farmers faced then and now, I have only the utmost respect for them and what they had (and have) to deal with. It does not surprise me that many farmers in the latter part of the 19th century gave up farming and moved to urban areas in order to find new types of work. And even though farming has evolved into agribusiness, the challenges of climate change remain and are expected to worsen during the latter part of this century. If the 19th century teaches us anything, it is that you cannot predict the weather or future outcomes, and the latter part of this century is likely to be a repetition of that.
19th Century
There were at least three major droughts in 19th-century North America: one from the mid-1850s to the mid-1860s, one in the 1870s, and one in the 1890s (refs). There was also a drought around 1820; the periods from 1816 to 1844 and from 1849 to 1880 were rather dry, and the 19th century overall was a dry century for the Great Plains. While there was little rain-gauge data from the mid-19th century in the middle of the US, there were plenty of trees, and tree-ring data showed evidence of a major drought from around 1856 to around 1865. Native Americans were hard hit, as the bison they depended upon on the Plains moved to river valleys in search of water, and those valleys were full of natives and settlers alike. The river valleys were also home to domestic livestock, which competed against the bison for food. The result was starvation for many of the bison.
The 1870–1877 drought brought with it a major swarm of Rocky Mountain Locusts, as droughts benefit locusts, making plants more nutritious and edible to locusts and reducing diseases that harm locusts. Locusts also grow more quickly during a drought and gather in small spots of lush vegetation, enabling them to swarm, facts which contributed to the ruin of much of the farmland in the American West. The evidence for this drought is also primarily in tree-ring, rather than rain gauge, data.
The 1890s drought, between 1890 and 1896, was the first to be widely and adequately recorded by rain gauges, with much of the American West having been settled. Railroads promised land to people willing to settle it, and the period between 1877 and 1890 was wetter than usual, leading to unrealistic expectations of land productivity. The amount of land required to support a family in more arid regions was already larger than the amount that could realistically be irrigated by a family, but this fact was made more obvious by the drought, leading to emigration from recently settled lands. The Federal government started to assist with irrigation with the 1902 Reclamation Act.
Laura Ingalls Wilder was born in 1867, and her life, along with her family's, were strongly affected by the droughts and harsh weather at that time, as well as the horrific Rocky Mountain locust plagues that destroyed crops (and livelihoods) and homes alike. Wikipedia reports (and I cite): Sightings often placed their swarms in numbers far larger than any other locust species, with one famous sighting in 1875 estimated at 198,000 square miles (510,000 km2) in size (greater than the area of California), weighing 27.5 million tons and consisting of some 12.5 trillion insects. If that wouldn't scare you if you saw it coming, I don't know what would. I imagine that most farmers thought the apocalypse had arrived. Fraser describes how the dead bodies of these locusts (now extinct, luckily for us) would lie on the railroad tracks and clog the rails, preventing the trains from running.
When I read about the difficulties that farmers faced then and now, I have only the utmost respect for them and what they had (and have) to deal with. It does not surprise me that many farmers in the latter part of the 19th century gave up farming and moved to urban areas in order to find new types of work. And even though farming has evolved into agribusiness, the challenges of climate change remain and are expected to worsen during the latter part of this century. If the 19th century teaches us anything, it is that you cannot predict the weather or future outcomes, and the latter part of this century is likely to be a repetition of that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Winter in Saint Raphael
Saint Raphael is a lovely small city on the French Riviera (also known as the Cote d' Azur or the Blue Coast ). It has a rich histor...
