Posted on 07/29/2003 10:56:03 AM PDT by NYer
Among the many troubling offshoots of the clergy sex abuse scandal, the erosion of confidence in the leaders of the Church is easily one of the worst.
Tell a mixed audience of Catholics that not all bishops are responsible for the mess and that anti-Catholicism had something to do with the way the scandal was presented and perceived — you’re likely to get your head handed to you for your trouble.
But, as Philip Jenkins shows in his important book "The New Anti-Catholicism" (Oxford University Press, $27), these things happen to be facts. People who think the abuse scandal was exclusively about pedophile priests and cynical bishops trying to shield them from punishment need to hear what Jenkins says.
The book is about many things besides the scandal. Taken as a whole, it is a serious look at why anti-Catholicism is the "last acceptable prejudice" in the United States — why opinion leaders of every sort casually slam the Catholic Church when they wouldn’t dream of slamming any other church or institution.
Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, is no Catholic apologist. A former Catholic who parted ways with the Church years back, he is now an Episcopalian.
He also is a prolific author whose topics range from the explosive growth of Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere ("The Next Christendom," Oxford University Press, $28) to an examination of clergy sex abuse that debunks commonly held myths ("Pedophiles and Priests," Oxford University Press, $18).
HARD JABS FROM THE LEFT
Jenkins reports that, unlike the old-style, mainly Protestant anti-Catholicism it has largely but not entirely replaced, the "new" anti-Catholicism exists mainly on "the left/liberal side of the spectrum, especially among feminists and gay activists." These people oppose the Church on touchy issues where gender and politics intersect, like abortion and same-sex marriage.
The results of this clash are visible today everywhere from movies to art exhibitions in which Catholic themes are treated with contempt.
"For many people in the United States — particularly for opinion-makers in the mass media and in the academic world — Catholicism neither needs nor deserves the kind of protections that apply to other religious traditions," Jenkins concludes.
"In this assessment, the Church is a haven of reaction, especially on matters of gender and sexuality, and it deserves little sympathy when it is attacked because, frankly, it is so dependably on the wrong side."
Enter the scandal of sex abuse by priests.
No more than any other sane person does Jenkins doubt that some priests were guilty of horrible crimes and some bishops botched the handling of the problem in mind-boggling ways. These were the central causes of this historic disaster for the Church.
But there is more than that to the story.
Even though there was no solid basis in fact to support the view, around the mid-1980s, the media concluded that sex abuse was distinctively a problem of Catholic priests. This resulted in terrible distortions in coverage:
• The number of offenders often was grossly exaggerated. In reality, Jenkins suggests, probably no more than 2 percent to 3 percent of all priests were involved with minors.
• Abusive priests routinely were described as "pedophiles" — molesters of young children — even though a careful study of priests in the Chicago archdiocese found, for example, that just one out of more than 2,200 was a pedophile.
• Sex abuse by clergy of other denominations was treated as an isolated, individual phenomenon, but in the case of Catholic priests it was presented as a product of the doctrines and structures of the Church.
• Even though policies implemented by most bishops starting in 1993 meant that "most dioceses have in recent years done a respectable job" of handling the abuse problem, this progress was largely ignored.
"In modern American history, no mainstream denomination has ever been treated so consistently, so publicly, with such venom," Jenkins says.
Catholics joined in the Catholic-bashing. Jenkins mentions columnists Maureen Dowd and Anna Quindlen, psychotherapist Richard Sipe and writers Garry Wills, James Carroll and Eugene Kennedy. The list could be extended.
But can Catholics really be anti-Catholic? Conventional wisdom treats the very idea as absurd. If a Catholic — at any rate, a prominent Catholic on the left — criticizes the Church, he or she automatically gets respect from the media.
Jenkins thinks that’s a mistake. If somebody uses "harsh, sweeping, and vindictive" rhetoric to grind axes against the Church, that is anti-Catholic by definition, he holds.
RIGHT THINKING?
Manifesting the same blind spot about conservative Catholic opinion that secular writers commonly suffer from, Jenkins seems unaware that Catholic anti-Catholicism also exists on the Catholic right.
But it does. Catholics on both ends of the spectrum now join in decrying "the bishops," with no distinctions made.
It is as if African-Americans or Jews, buying into anti-black or anti-Semitic stereotypes, had turned on the authority structures of their own communities and were bent on destroying them.
Here, perhaps, is a disturbing symptom of collective Catholic self-hatred.
Bad as it was, the anti-Catholicism of the past came from outside the Church. And being under siege may even have strengthened the Catholic community in some ways.
Today, attacks from the outside are still taking place. But the Church also finds itself under attack from within. "We have met the enemy, and he is us," the cartoon character Pogo announced. Maybe so — but this new anti-Catholicism is no laughing matter.— Shaw (rshaw@osv.com) is Our Sunday Visitor’s Washington correspondent
. . . and it’s not going away soon
Is there a solution to anti-Catholicism in the United States? In "The New Anti-Catholicism," Philip Jenkins says the problem is so deeply rooted in American culture that it may be impossible to eradicate "in a decade or a lifetime."
Still, it doesn’t follow that nothing can be done.
"The greatest single achievement might be to acknowledge its existence and to treat it as a form of prejudice quite as pernicious as any other," Jenkins says.
In the news media especially, he adds, "it would be wonderful if writers dealing with Catholic themes would examine their work just long enough to see if they were recycling ancient stereotypes, in much the same way they should if writing about Jews, blacks, or other once-despised groups."
Good idea. But how to turn that from pious hope into concrete reality is not so clear. » R.S.
Yes, something is wrong when this happens. But the Catechism lays out our true belief. If someone is taught something, even in a Catholic school, that is in disagreement with the Catechism, it is wrong.
If you look at my posts above you'll see that my beef is not with those who hold beliefs which don't agree with ours, its with people who deliberately misrepresent Catholic belief for the purpose of discrediting the Church.
Maybe not in the sense of being sinful. Its probably just a psychological thing, rationalization/justification.
and to believe that is what the RCC wanted them to believe.
I know lots of folks claim what you claim here.
Usually the fact is that they simply learned NOTHING.
Then they read so much non-Catholic and anti-Catholic crap, they adopt the lies therein as their own memories. Its probably subconscious.
I know this from Catholics like you who left the faith, adopted the anti-Catholic "but this IS what I was taught" crap you describe here, but eventually come to their senses and return to the faith.
Rationalization can do strange things to you.
The number of offenders often was grossly exaggerated. In reality, Jenkins suggests, probably no more than 2 percent to 3 percent of all priests were involved with minors.
2 to 3 percent of any profession being "involved" with minors is a problem. If it was 2 to 3 percent of teachers, or scoutmasters, or little league coaches -- don't you think this would be an issue? 2 to 3 percent is a lot!!. And at that level I don't think the "number of offenders" is being grossly exaggerated.
Sex abuse by clergy of other denominations was treated as an isolated, individual phenomenon, but in the case of Catholic priests it was presented as a product of the doctrines and structures of the Church.
This is partly due to the fact that the catholic church is the biggest and most hierarchical. It is like the IBM of churches. Where the problem in protestant churches exists tends to be mainly in the big mainline protestant churches that are structurally similar to the catholic churches (hierarchy of bishops, ability to shuffle problem minister between churches, etc.) But most protestant churches have "elders" who will deal pretty quickly with a problematical pastor or minister, and that pastor or minister is not going to have an easy time finding another job -- because the reason for firing is going to be communicated.
This is IMO. Comments?
Or he can start his own church.What's to stop him?
The reality is -- firing priests, ministers, and pastors who get sexually involved with minors is absolutely the way to go. Plus they should be charged and prosecuted like any other person. Who the heck does the church hierarchy think they are to cover up for a crime? I don't care what their other God given qualities are like, they are not appropriate as leaders in the Church. Let them go off and be theologians, or missionaries, or run soup kitchens for the homeless. But -- fire them as leaders.
Of course it concerns us. Do you not see the threads we post about the crap being taught in liberal Catholic universities, in contradiction to the Magisterium? The same is happening to a somewhat lesser extent in Catholic primary and secondary schools.
I hope that's not a reference to what I think it is a reference to. ;-)
SD
I disagree with this theory about how congregational government works. Controversial ministers usually have factions that supports them, so they often leave with a nice severance package and, except in the most clear-cut cases of abuse, find employment elsewhere. But I am afraid that neither of us could produce conclusive evidence of this. No one has done the legwork to see how the thousands of congrehations have handled sexual scandals. My guess is that movement of Protestant clergy more often has to do with the mingling of personal and church funds than with sex.
#1023 explains how to get into purgutory...It didn't mention "right intent." Normally, babies are Baptized...how do you define a baby having "right intent"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.