The Pope said today that he believes the 2 most important issues affecting the world are abortion and same sex marriage. Really.
Here are my votes:
Hunger
Disease
Environmental Damage
Terrorism
War
A lot of people have called the Pope "out of touch with reality". I'm going to officially call him and idiot. I was raised Catholic and I do not disrespect the good people who follow this religion, but I do disrespect this man. It is time for the parishioners to rise up and be heard. I'm certain they do not agree with this nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Really?
May I make a suggestion/request? It would be helpful if you would cite sources or provide links when you make claims about what someone has allegedly said. I've done a Google search and I cannot find anywhere where the Pope said that "the 2 most important issues affecting the world are abortion and same sex marriage."
The closest thing that I could find was him saying that these were "some of today's most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good," (said during a Mass at Fatima on May 13).
Besides being not at all what you have claimed he said; that also happens to be a fairly conventional opinion among a wide range of the world's spiritual leaders, whether Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. (I wonder, do you also consider the Dali Lama an "idiot", after all, he agrees with the Pope on both of these issues).
You may certainly disagree with him on this or any other issue, but you should at least disagree with him honestly and quote him accurately.
If I have missed the quote you are referring to, please document it and I shall stand corrected. Otherwise, the honorable thing for you to do would be to offer a correction.
I understand that being a Gay man you have a personal and emotional stake in this issue, but you only weaken your own case by playing so fast and loose with the facts.
Again, if I am mistaken in this matter, it should be fairly easy for you to correct me.
Thanks.
Andre,
I didn't quote the Pope - I paraphrased - but I'm glad you did.
"the 2 most important issues affecting the world" (my quote)
"some of today's most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good" (the Pope's quote)
Very similar if you ask me but I do see the difference. Let's just address the Pope's comment as quoted above. I still would think something like Corporate greed or terrorism would top the list rather than same sex marriage - whether you are gay or not. It is simply ludicrous. Sadly, this is not the only idiotic thing the Pope has said while at the same time brushing aside the HUGE scandal of pedophilia right there in his own church.
Here is the underlying problem - people believe this man (just a man - born of flesh and blood) is somehow closer to God than you or I. That is a clear violation of the First Commandment. Sadly, he too believes he is more "Godly". Wrong. He is simply another person on this earth who is capable of missteps, prejudice, and yes - sin just like anyone else. When he is wrong not only should he admit it, but the congregation should be able to dethrone him if they feel strongly enough. Catholic Church history clearly shows how wrong a Pope can be.
Want to hear something really funny? It turns out that we both got the quote wrong! (well, in fairness, I got the quote wrong...you merely paraphrased what turns out to be typical misreporting by the Associated Press...of the two, my error was the most egregious: I should know better than to ever take what the AP says at face value! D'oh! I need to do a better job of following my own advice about verifying quotes!)
I sought out and read the actual transcript of the Pope's remarks (cut & paste link at bottom of this post). Here is the money quote:
"Initiatives aimed at protecting the essential and primary values of life, beginning at conception, and of the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, help to respond to some of today's most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good. Such initiatives represent, alongside numerous other forms of commitment, essential elements in the building of the civilization of love."
See the difference? He's didn't actually say that abortion and same sex marriage are "some of today's most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good," ( although he certainly considers them both great evils) What he was saying was that promoting the sanctity of life and the supporting and strengthening families were both key elements in building a society capable of withstanding the whole wide range of threats facing the modern world.
Now, obviously, you and he would still differ on many aspects and particulars of these issues, but I think that on the larger points of the value and dignity of human life and the importance of strong families (however these are both defined), there would probably be a wide scope of agreement between you.
It was also interesting to note that these remarks were made before a gathering of over 9000 representatives of various charitable organizations; as Benedict described them " a variety of faces, all one in concern for social issues and, above all, in showing compassion to the poor, the infirm, prisoners, the lonely and abandoned, the disabled, children and the elderly, migrants, the unemployed and all those who experience needs which compromise personal dignity and freedom."
Nice, I wish I had been there.
"You have heard Jesus say: "Go and do likewise" (Lk 10:37). He exhorts us to imitate the example of the Good Samaritan, which was just now proclaimed, when approaching situations which call for fraternal assistance. And what is this example? It is that of "a heart which sees". "This heart sees where love is needed and acts accordingly" "
His remarks are worth reading in full:
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36545
"Here is the underlying problem - people believe this man (just a man - born of flesh and blood) is somehow closer to God than you or I. "
I would never, of course, presume to know anything about what your relationship with God might or might not be...but one thing that I do know, one thing about which I have not the slightest doubt, is that this Pope is far, far , closer to God than I am!
I know enough about this man to know that he shall almost certainly end up a Saint (i.e. in the presence of God in Heaven and partaking in the Beatific Vision). I say "almost" certainly, because it is a Dogma of the Catholic Church that the salvation (or damnation) of no one is certain or can be known absolutely by us here in this life.
No, the "underlying problem" is, as always, Sin. The state of sin and the Fall from Grace in which we all live ( there is that great line from that song by The Wall Flowers: "the same black line that falls on you, falls on me...") The Pope also is subject to sin, it would be a heresy for him to claim, or for us to believe, anything different. Of course he make mistakes, of course he sins ( why else would he feel the need to go, as he does, to Confession once a week?!)
You should know these things, having been raised a Catholic! I'm just kidding...I was also raised Catholic and rejected it for most of my life, and it is only now, in the last few years, when I have been moving back towards the possibility of belief in God and reading a lot about it, that I am really just beginning to know some of the things "that I should know".
I have a long, long way to go.
I have read a couple of Benedict's books (I hope to read more) and I can tell you that far from being an "idiot" he is man of great learning and deep and profound thinking. Go to a bookstore or library and read a few pages of his "Introduction to Christianity" (written in the late 1960's when he was a Professor of Theology)and you will see what I mean.
When I first began to read that book, I had only a vague impression of the man. I knew he had been for many years the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( the successor office of the Inquisition!) and had a reputation as a hard ass which had earned him the nickname within the Vatican of the "Panza-cardinal". So I was quite shocked and pleasantly surprised to find him to be a man of truly "liberal" and broad vision and highly nuanced insight.
But what I was most struck by, and what most impressed me was his sincere and deep humbleness and humility: intellectually and spiritually and personally.
Denny, you don't have a clue about this man. You truly don't know the first thing about him. And yet I know, that all your calumnies against him are based simply on ignorance. A great ignorance to be sure, but I think, in it's own way, a good hearted and non-malicious ignorance.
Aim higher.
Andre,
I read the whole speech and I re-read that quote several times - I still get the same impression. Buy supporting measures for abortion and same sex marriage (equality) then you support the "most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good" I still believe there are far greater treats to the common good that should be addressed first and foremost. To focus the church on these 2 issues is to lose focus on the other far greater issues such as hunger (for all the babies they are begging people to bring into the world).
Unlike you, I truly believed the teachings of the Catholic Church up through my early adulthood - even though the church condemned the way God created me. I knew I was gay before age 5. As my faith in God grew, my faith in the Catholic Church fell apart. By questioning my "religion" I became a much more spiritual person.
I believe strongly in forgiveness. In my opinion it is the single most important value of humanity. But forgiveness comes from the heart - not from the mouth. To confess your sins in a private little room to another person who had nothing to do with your injustice is meaningless. If you truly seek forgiveness, you must face those you wronged and ask them for their forgiveness. The Catholic Church has made it very easy to pass off malicious behavior without ever having to face those who were hurt. It may help them sleep well at night but it does not resolve the issue. Hatred brews from ignoring another person's injustice. Waiting centuries until those who were wronged are dead is also fruitless.
You are correct that I don't know much about the person who is this Pope. What I do know is the legacy that he is creating. A person's actions are far more important than their education. I believe this Pope is leading his church in the wrong direction. Mother Teresa was a saint - she lived in poverty, helped those in need and never sought acclaim for her actions. That's how saints work. This Pope is no saint.
I have to admit that I am completely confused by your reference to Mother Theresa: to put her name forward as some kind of counter-example to Pope Benedict is frankly, well... bizarre. It certainly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of both Mother Theresa and of Benedict.
Mother Theresa was of course an extremely devout and extremely orthodox (that is to say: conservative)Catholic who devoted her entire life to a radical interpretation of the very same principles and beliefs that you have denounced in the context of Pope Benedict as "ludicrous" and "idiotic". If she were alive today she would undoubtedly be one of the Pope's most vocal and enthusiastic supporters.
However, I can agree whole heartedly with you about the value and importance of forgiveness.
It probably won't surprise you to hear that I also agree with you whole heartedly when you admit that you "...don't know much about the person who is this Pope."
You can say that again.
No worries...you can be sure that Benedict forgives you ( and loves you, too)
Since you believe the Pope is headed for Sainthood, I felt it relevant (to everyone else anyway) to give an example of a true modern day Saint. Mother Teresa lived in poverty, helped the poor and sick with unselfish love - like Jesus would. The Pope on the other hand, sits on a throne in a golden mansion, has people kiss his ring and passes judgment on Gods creation. This Pope like those before him still feel that women are not worthy of being a priest much less a Pope. Not very Saint-like in my opinion. I don't think a true Saint could even be a Pope - the whole thing goes against the teaching of Jesus. This, of course is just my opinion.
I'm glad you feel the Pope will forgive me for calling him an idiot. One day many of us will forgive him for calling us today's most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.
This is going to be wordy; sorry, can't be helped.
First I have to say that I find this whole conversation and topic fascinating ("It's the bollocks, man" as Liam Gallagher might say,or not...probably not). I fear you may find it just slightly annoying (maybe not so slightly: I'm sorry for that).
For the record, I appreciate you giving me a place to hash some of these things out aloud, particularly since my thoughts and views on these matters (and so many others) have been in such a state of flux over the last few years. Whereas you may perhaps find this whole exercise an annoying waste of time I find it actually extremely helpful and stimulating to my thinking.
It goes without saying that you are under no obligation to respond to anything that I post; do not feel under any pressure to do so (and again, for the record, I certainly shall not take your lack of response as in any way an indication or admission that you have no response to offer; something that I may have done (fairly or not) in some of our previous, more overtly political debates.
With the above qualifications out of the way, let me just briefly return to your first post and make a few comments about what I found to be so objectionable about it.
It's not at all that you disagree with the Pope...given the little that I know about you, and supplementing that with a whole host of assumptions (risky, I know,but unavoidable)I would be much more greatly surprised if you didn't!
No, what I found objectionable (and wildly inaccurate) was your caricature of this man as some kind of "out of touch with reality" "idiot". He is clearly and demonstrably neither of those things, and this would be true whether or not he is ultimately correct in his analysis of the state of the world and it's problems ( I personally suspect that he is probably closer to the truth than not, but I also concede the possibility that he is totally wrong about everything).
What has become clear to me though, from your subsequent posts, is that your beef is not with this single man at all, but with Christianity itself. It's not as if Benedict is making up some new doctrine out of whole cloth; he is merely proclaiming what has been the continuously accepted and non-controversial Catholic teaching for the last two thousand years, going back to the community of believers who were witness to the teaching of Christ, and ultimately to Christ himself.
When you say " It is time for the parishioners to rise up and be heard. I'm certain they do not agree with this nonsense." what you are really asking for them to do is to rise up and reject Christ, not Benedict (who is merely his servant). You may say that you "do not disrespect the good people who follow this religion" but that is clearly not true. You have in effect also called them "idiots" for ever believing this "nonsense" in the first place. If that's not disrespecting them then I don't know what is!
But fair enough; if you believe that Christianity is just a boatload of hooey, and that all those who profess it are just fools and idiots, just come out and say it ( you won't be alone!)...but don't tried to have it both ways by appealing to all "the good people who follow this religion" and to Mother Theresa, implying that somehow the Pope is outside of and against the very community of believers of which he is the head. That's just silly.
Your argument, regardless of whatever validity it may or may not possess, is fundamentally with Christ, not with Benedict.
Today, you want to villainize and crucify this man who delivers such an uncomfortable message, and to that end you will either distort what he says or refuse to hear it. This is particularilly ironic in this context, especially when one considers certain events that are alleged to have occurred in Palestine around 33AD.
Peace to you.
Well Andre - you have indeed made a lot of assumptions - most of which are incorrect. But I have written several articles on the difference between Spirituality (Faith) and Religion. There is a very big difference and I do find that most "Religions" are tailored to a human goal rather than spiritual enlightenment (those goals being mostly financial). Still, I do not have a "beef" with these religions or the people that follow them - until it insights violence or judgments on God's creations. Sadly, most religions tend to end up there and that is where I speak up. I also truly believe that most people who follow those religions do not agree with the judgments, violence and greed. Most do not speak up because it is implied they are speaking against God which simply isn't true. Every religious document in the world was written by a human - even Jesus didn't write anything down.
One thing I do want to be clear on though is that my original article was about the Pope and the Pope only. It is his decisions and the direction he is leading the church I have a problem with. If I have an issue with the President of the USA and I state it in an article, it does not imply that I disrespect America and all it's population who happen to live and vote here. Can you see the difference?
I also wanted to note for the record (not that it is important) that I do belong to a church and attend regularly. I have been attending The Metropolitan Community Church here in Fort Lauderdale since I moved here in 1990. It is a non-denominational mostly gay congregation that accepts everyone. They have their issues just like any church but - like most churches, they server a lot of community services. This is where the real power of churches lies. The Catholic church in my hometown was very responsive when my Father was ill and passed. That is what it is all about. Feed the poor, comfort the sick and dying, and make the world a better place - not a bitter place.
Another longish one, sorry...read it when you have the time (or never)...
I am glad that the Church was able to be of some assistance to you during what must have been the very difficult and painful time of your father's passing. That is a good thing.
I am glad that most church's and denominations are actively engaged in various community projects and charities. These are good things.
"Feed the poor, comfort the sick and dying, and make the world a better place..." These are all good and noble and necessary things.
I find nothing controversial about any of that: I've read enough history to know that the role of religion, especially Christianity in the West, has been, and continues to be, absolutely vital to the positive development and maintenance of human society and civilization.
But as important as all that is, and I don't want to diminish it in the slightest, is it truly the whole case that "That is what it is all about"? Or is there not also something else ? Something more? Is there not also a more transcendent meaning to our existence? Something that goes beyond just what we experience here and now?
I get the impression that in many a "church" these days, questions like that are rarely ever asked or even much thought about. It seems some churches view themselves as little more than just another social service agency ( again, I'm not belittling the value and importance of that work!). I'm not implying that this is the case with the Metropolitan Community Church ( I've heard of it, but I don't really know anything about it), but I do know that in the Catholic Church these questions are considered very important and vital to the very origin and meaning of the Church's purpose and existence
(though they are certainly no slackers when it comes to charity and good works, having been
at least since the time of Constantine, through to this very day, probably the largest charitable organization in the history of the world...the church of St. Francis and of Mother Theresa, they have certainly been the longest continuously functioning charitable organization in the world).
If there is no transcendent meaning to our lives, and there is no moral order beyond what we choose for ourselves here and now, then those who claim that the Pope is "out of touch with reality" are certainly correct. If however, the whole point of this life is not just "this" life...well, then, who knows? (not me). Maybe it's the Pope who is in touch with "reality" and we who are out of touch. In order to answer that question definitively we would have to know the answer to the prior question of whether or not there is a truly transcendent meaning to our lives...can either of us answer that question for certain?
I know that I can't. Can you?
Lacking definitive answers to these questions, it would probably be wise for both of us to approach these issues with greater humility.
*****
On another note, you asked:
"...the Pope and the Pope only. It is his decisions and the direction he is leading the church I have a problem with. If I have an issue with the President of the USA and I state it in an article, it does not imply that I disrespect America and all it's population who happen to live and vote here. Can you see the difference?"
Yes, I can see the difference, but I am tempted to ask in reply if you can see the difference between the office of the President of a Republic and the Chair of St. Peter? I am not aware of a single person who believes that the Presidency of the United States is an office established directly by God, but there are at least 1.1 billion people on this planet who do believe that the Papacy was instituted directly by Jesus Christ(Matthew 16:18).
At no time in American history was it believed that citizens were in any way bound by the moral instructions of the President, and yet almost all Christians (not just Catholics) in all ages have accepted as Canonical and authentic (and for the first 1500 years interpreted similarly) the words of Jesus to Simon/Peter" "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19).
I would also offer the above as evidence against your contention from an earlier post when you claimed that " I don't think a true Saint could even be a Pope - the whole thing goes against the teaching of Jesus." Again,I say, your argument is with Jesus, not Benedict.
Now, obviously you could contest the validity and/or interpretation of that quote, but that's not the point; the point is that Catholics don't. They do not view the Pope as just the some elected official or rotary club president. The see the office of the Pope as a sacred position, instituted by Jesus Christ himself, and as such under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit in a way that no institution created by man alone is or ever could be.
Good posts Andre. As always, I'll let you have the last word. I'm moving on.
Well, it is God who will have the last word, of course, but before you leave...
For the sake of the truth, I just want to clear up a few misrepresentations that you have made:
1."Sadly, this is not the only idiotic thing the Pope has said while at the same time brushing aside the HUGE scandal of pedophilia right there in his own church."
If you knew anything about the history of the Priest sex scandal and the Church's handling of it, you would know that the truth of the matter is almost exactly the opposite of what you have stated. Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, was the first high ranking member of the Vatican to aggressively deal with this tragedy. While head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, it was he who convinced John Paul II ( who for all his great qualities seemed emotionally unprepared to deal with the problem as forcefully as it required)that every single case should go through his office, where he personally studied every single case (it has been said that he is probably the only person in the world who has done that). He was the one who most recognized the scale and gravity of the situation and took the bull by the horns. Don't take my word for it; read Harvard law professor (and prominent Left-wing atheist/Jew) Allen Dershowitz's article about it linked below:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pope/
also:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=633
2. "This Pope like those before him still feel that women are not worthy of being a priest much less a Pope."
Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. When it comes to the worth of an individual the Church brought a truly radical egalitarianism into the world (one which most Pagans found quite shocking): "...there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Jesus Christ." (Galatians 3:28)
It is true that the Church believes that the Natural Law, and the teaching and example of Jesus Christ reveal that certain of life's vocations are designed in the plan of God to be gender specific, and as such, the Church does not have it within it's legitimate power to acknowledge otherwise.
The full explanation is far to long to condense into a comm-box...the short version has to do with the fact that Jesus, although not averse to counter-cultural actions in other situations, pointedly chose only males for the twelve, and that even though of all humans it was a woman, Mary his mother, who was most exalted, it was to a male, Simon-Peter that he handed the "keys to the Kingdom" and the Priestly vocation...to say that this demonstrates that women are viewed as unworthy is to be as confused about the role and nature of vocations as it would be to say that the Church also believes that men are "unworthy" to conceive and bear children within their bodies.
If you are interested, you can learn more about what the Church actually teaches on this issue and why here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp
I have said it repeatedly before, but it is worth saying again: if you are going to criticize the teachings of the Church (or of any other person or organization for that matter) then I believe that fairness demands that you at least present those teachings accurately ( otherwise you are just battling a creature of your own invention).
This goes for myself too, of course, and I am sure that in other places and in other contexts, that I have been equally guilty of the same kind of thing (if not more so).
Pax.
1. If any governing member of the church knew of confirmed cases of child abuse and did not report this to the proper authorities - especially after repeated acts - they should be sitting in jail, not on a throne. Most likely cause of this wide spread action throughout the Catholic Church is the unnatural (un-Godly?) requirement of celibacy.
2. So Jesus had no female friends? Neither do I (wink wink). Is that a reason to keep women from doing work they can clearly do - and do well (as seen in the MCC church I attend) - certainly not. Most likely cause of this requirement in the Catholic Church - male superiority complex.
You say "you are just battling a creature of your own invention"? Please keep in mind this blog is an opinion piece. I do try to back up my thoughts with facts when necessary but I fail to see the point of copying and pasting every article.
Of course Jesus had women friends, as a matter of fact at the crucifixion it was the woman followers (the two Marys, Joanna,and others)who proved to be the most faithful and loyal to him; they stayed with him the whole time while the men panicked and fled. If anything, that observation only strengthens the case that, whatever Jesus's reasons were for establishing the Priesthood as a male vocation, "worthiness" had nothing to do with it.
As far as the fashionably modern concept of a "male superiority complex" in the early church, well, to think that you as a male are somehow inherently superior to a female solely by virtue of your maleness, is a grave error and to think that way is a sin, and since the church, then and now, is composed, in this life at least, entirely of sinners, then it is only reasonable to assume that just about any sin that you can imagine can be found within the Church if you look hard enough (and alas, too often without having to look very hard at all).
However, since the Priesthood was established by Christ, and Christ, being God, is by definition logically incapable of Sin, it can thus be shown that the idea of a male superiority complex, although perhaps meaningful when assessing the motivations of men, can have no possible relevance when discussing the motivations of Christ/God.
"Most likely cause of this wide spread action throughout the Catholic Church is the unnatural (un-Godly?) requirement of celibacy."
Hmm...that's an interesting theory. What evidence do you have in support of it? Any at all?
There is certainly lots of evidence to contradict it. To take just one example; according to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that the National Education Association requires it's member teachers to be celibate.
Other studies have found that the rate of sexual abuse by priests is comparable to, or lower than, members of other occupations ( none of which require celibacy). If anything, the available evidence would show that priestly celibacy has either no effect of sexual abuse rates , or, at least in the case of the DOE study mentioned above, it would seem to be a factor in actually lessening the rates of sexual abuse.
Other researchers, comparing different religious denominations, have also found that the sexual abuse rate is actually higher in many Protestant denominations that do not require clerical celibacy.
Aside from statistics, the best argument I've heard against this theory just comes from common sense and personal experience. It goes like this; ask someone if they have ever gone through any long periods in their life where for one reason or another they weren't having any sex. If they answer yes, then ask them if during that period, when they were effectually "celibate" if they suddenly where overcome with an irresistible desire to molest young boys!
I also want to make one quick stab at answering the question you raised in passing about the "un-Godly?" nature of celibacy. The answer is Yes and No. It is true that the general commandment is to "be fruitful and multiply", but again this goes back to the discussion about vocations: Jesus himself makes it clear that for some people celibacy is a proper option:
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
Of course, from the Catholic understanding,the reference to some "because they were born so" could possibly be interpreted to include homosexuals (although the question whether someone is born gay or later "becomes" gay is still far from scientifically settled).
But that, as they say, is a whole other kettle of fish.
One last thing:
"If any governing member of the church knew of confirmed cases of child abuse and did not report this to the proper authorities - especially after repeated acts - they should be sitting in jail, not on a throne."
I agree with you 100% about this. I also believe that there probably were Bishops who should have been criminally charged as enablers and accomplices when they resigned known molesters to pastoral positions in other parishes (by the way, it is just as much a failure of the local and state Prosecutors not to file those charges, and of liberal judges to give such absurdly lenient sentences to the molesters who are tried and convicted)
One complication though is that many of these Bishops were acting (foolishly as it turned out, but not criminally) under the advice of secular psychological and psychiatric professionals who had "certified" the perpetrators as "cured" and unlikely to again commit such acts. Hopefully, they will not make that mistake again.
I hope your reference to "throne" was not an implication that Benedict was one of those Bishops? There is no evidence for that assertion at all (see this article that I had referenced in a previous post:http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=633).
A good book to read about this is "The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture" by Philip Lawler. He provides a good account of the whole history of the sex scandal and excoriates so many of the Bishops for their absolute failure to deal with it properly, and how to this very day so many of them have not fully accepted their personal responsibility for things that have happened.
“The thesis of this book,” writes Lawler, “is that the sex abuse scandal in American Catholicism was not only aggravated but actually caused by the willingness of church leaders to sacrifice the essential for the inessential; to build up the human institution even to the detriment of the divine mandate.” Bishops again and again responded to the crisis as institutional managers, employing public relations stratagems to evade, deceive, and distract attention from their own responsibility. Lawler several times invokes the terse observation of St. Augustine, “God does not need my lie.” The bishops lied, says Lawler, and many of them are still lying. This is offered not as an accusation but as a conclusion that he believes is compelled by the evidence.
Here's a good short review of that book (from which the above paragraph was pulled), which is also an excellent essay about the Church sex scandal:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/02/paved-with-the-skulls-of-bisho
yes, I'm intentionally being a punk with the copying and pasting of the articles (because of your previous comment) but seriously, it's good stuff! Worth reading.
It seems like you can justify or defend any sort of atrocity with copy and paste. Maybe you should contact (or read a book about) some of the victims of these arcane church policies - including those women denied priesthood and see if they agree with your defense.
I'm not aware of having defended any "atrocity". How you could pull that interpretation out of the words I posted is truly amazing.
For once, I am left speechless...
Post a Comment