Posted on 03/20/2002 9:27:32 AM PST by heyheyhey
by David Dieteman
The news media loves nothing so much as to bash the Catholic Church.
Consider the recent cover of Newsweek, headlined "Sex, Shame and the Catholic Church."
Clearly, this is designed to be a devastating cover, a dagger aimed at the hearts and hope of those faithful Catholics unsure of how to puzzle out the apparent failings of their leaders. I am referring, of course, to the current media storm over allegations of pedophilia.
This is not to say that the alleged handling of any case of pedophilia is above criticism, or that the Church is above criticism. Priests are supposed to be worthy of trust, and not predators. Priests are supposed to provide guidance for the salvation of souls, and not moral corruption. Moreover, if the Church mishandled any alleged incidents of pedophilia out of concern for dealing with an alleged shortage of priests, this too may be laid at the feet of the Church: for the past 30 years, the Catholic schools have taught that all religions are equally valid, thereby discouraging many young men from entering the challenging life of the priesthood. In summary, the allegations of pedophilia and of cover-ups are serious and greatly disturbing.
On the other hand, the American news media is not in any moral position to render judgment on the Church.
The cover of Newsweek mentioned above is hypocritical, to be blunt. Recall that Newsweek refused to run Michael Isikoff's investigative reports on Bill Clinton's extra-marital affairs until the stories were already quite old.
The reason for this journalistic double-standard is quite obvious. The men and women who decide what daily events shall qualify as "news" dearly wanted to be on Bill Clinton's good side. Being on the good side of a man of loose morals like Mr. Clinton allowed them to get scoops, to get invited to hot Washington parties, and to feel important. And that, after all, is what matters in life. All the "right people" adored Bill Clinton, and were ready and willing to cover up his infidelities and abuses.
Where the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, however, the media knows its enemy. Consider the pompous New York Times. During the Second World War, New York Times editorials praised the work of Pope Pius XII in protecting European Jews from the National Socialists. Fifty years later, the "paper of record" has a case of amnesia, as it routinely accuses the same Pope of nearly conspiring in the Holocaust.
Perhaps this should come as no surprise: the Times still has the Pulitzer won by Walter Duranty in the 1930s. Duranty was an eyewitness to Joseph Stalin's terror famine who dutifully filled the Times with glowing accounts of the glories of Communism.
Where the news media is concerned, the Catholic Church is a rival. To understand this rivalry, it is necessary to understand the nature of the press. There is nothing inherently anti-religious about a printing press, a typewriter, a computer, a modem, or a television. Indeed, the Church itself publishes newspapers, runs television stations, and is on the Internet. The conflict, then, is a human conflict, i.e., a conflict between men and women with different visions for the world. To summarize: there are those who despise the moral teachings of the Church, and who strive to destroy the credibility of the Church.
Consider the cartoonist Don Wright of the Palm Beach Post, whose recent cartoon depicted a woman complaining that the Church tells her what to do with her body, but does not similarly condemn pedophiles.
Wright's cartoon is sheer nonsense, at best a cheap attempt at humor. But his goal is serious: to undermine the notion that abortion is evil by claiming that the Church is hypocritical.
This is foolish for several reasons. First, whether or not abortion is evil is wholly unrelated to the moral goodness (or evil) of the one contending that abortion is evil, just as the truth of the fact that gasoline is not good for human consumption does not depend on the morality of the man who tells you not to drink gasoline. Wright's insulting humor is merely an attempt to distract the weak-minded (and willingly led) from the real issue.
Second, contrary to Wright's offensive cartoon, the Church does not advocate pedophilia. At most, Wright might argue that the Church has failed to adequately punish known pedophiles and prevent their doing further harm.
Here, Wright may have a point. It may be the case that certain men should have been dealt with differently than they were; this, however, is a factual question, and I do not claim to know sufficient facts to say much more than that. Even if this is the case, however, it cannot excuse or explain the cover of Newsweek or the silliness of Don Wright's cartoon.
What explains the rage directed at the Catholic Church? At the most basic level, human beings are emotional; their emotions short-circuit thought and thereby drive them to do silly things. If you doubt this, go to a political rally and watch alleged "adults" dress up as for a wrestling match and cheer for no-name stuffed suits running for office as if picking sides for Armageddon. People are prone to foolishness.
Moreover, our lives can tend to grow boring. We work, we go home, we whine and complain. And it's fun to go berserk condemning a public scandal because everyone is outraged. Individual intelligent thought is replaced by mindless group think and the herd mentality.
Finally, it is easy to hate the Church. Those who are not Catholics may easily distrust what they do not understand. Many who call themselves Catholic may also hate what they do not understand. And many who cannot tolerate any views but their own, or who regard moral instructions as condemnation, despise the Church precisely because they do understand.
The Church will endure all such criticism, scandals, and abuses. Those who hate the Church are the inheritors of the French revolutionaries whose mass executions of priests were designed to obliterate the Church. Priests were executed in the Mexican Revolution as well, and they are persecuted in China today. In England and Ireland, during the Penal Laws, priests had a bounty on their heads. The Church, however, has endured all these things, and will endure countless others until the end of time.
The French revolutionaries did not get their wish. Neither will Newsweek or the New York Times.
No matter how the Church may have mishandled any alleged incidents of pedophilia, the Church remains the Church. One hopes and prays that any necessary reforms will be made with due consideration and speed, and that those whose lives were affected may be healed, and that they may forgive those who wronged them. In the end, no matter how much the media may love a scandal, and the rising magazine sales it brings, the moral authority of the Church will endure.
Dan
What would constitute an answer to that prayer, from the Catholic perspective? IOW, what does "Christian Unity" mean to the Catholics that pray for it?
AB
The problem is the manner in which you framed many of your questions. That you would jump to the conclusion that it "probably wasn't your problem" should have been predictable. (It probably never is.)
I believe many non-Catholics are better Christians than many Catholics,nonetheless if the Catholic Church is destroyed in Western Civilization,all of Christendom along with civilization as we know it will disappear. While it will always be somewhere I don't think any one can claim they are doing God's will if we who believe in Jesus attack each other.
If you notice there are some threads here on FR that go on and on,the participants all belong to one of several breakaway new churches,relatively speaking,of an original mid sized denomination and they can argue and debate on ad infinitum. I think an open mind and prayer and study will lead us to truth.
This is odd to hear you say. Sink, you go from thread to thread disagreeing forcibly (and forcefully!) with people. You're pretty bare-knucks about it. In fact, some would say you're brass-knucks!
Do you really hate all those people? Are you really bigoted against their views? See, all this time, I assumed you didn't hate them. I assumed you just disagreed. Strongly.
Was I wrong, all this time? Do you really hate all those people? Or are you the only one capable of disagreeing strongly without being a hate-filled bigot?
You didn't answer my other questions, BTW.
Dan
Aren't you the quick learner? (c8
Dan
Dan
It still leaves the question: but where is that Church, if that's the point? The RC's argument is that a human organization must be identifiable as the sect Christ founded. He points to the RCC — again leaving me asking, "Where? What part of it?"
The Biblical Christian's answer is that God's self-revelation is one and united and unchanging. He points to the Bible.
I guess one of the points I'm making is that it's clear from many conversations that RCs are untroubled in the same head saying, "The RCC is united, in spite of millions of warring and sinning factions, so it must be Christ's organization" AND "Protestantism is hopelessly divided into millions of warring and sinning factions, so it cannot be Christ's organization."
My answer would be to point to neither.
Again, sincere thanks for a serious response.
Dan
Politics is not religious beliefs; talking about guns is not the same as talking about religious beliefs.
Dan, you're not interested in having your questions "answered"; besides, they've been addressed ad infinitum on this forum.
You've looked down your nose at Catholics as long as I've been on this forum, so I guess I should just expect you're not going to change.
Next time, I'll ignore you when you're talking about Catholicism, OK? We can debate or agree on anything else, but I'm not going to tolerate allowing you or anyone else calling my faith "absurd."
I dunno...
Jesus said, "by their fruits you shall KNOW them."
He also said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me, and another will they NOT follow."
"beware of wolves in sheep's clothing" also comes to mind.
The author of this article is pathetic.
These are no longer baseless allegations. They are fact. The pedophile leadership in the "Church" is going to jail.
If the shepherds are pedophiles, and they are the one and only true voice speaking for God, all the while covering up or actively practicing the most hideous forms of sexual abuse... What does it say about Jesus? If the shepherds are following HIM and they are practicing pedophilia, HOW can that reflect them being followers or leaders for Christ, unless the Church believes that Christ was twisted?
I think we see the fruit of organized religion manifest in so many perversions and distortions, that NONE of them can be trusted. JESUS... can be trusted. The rest are going to have to produce INDIVIDUAL fruit that demonstrates they love God, instead of the "wolf in sheep's clothing" act we currently see.
A tree is known by its fruit. If pedophilia is the fruit, the TREE is a pedophilia tree. That goes for Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Islam.
Wisdom is justified by her children, or by what she produces. To date I am increasingly disturbed by the increasingly evil fruit we have flowing in organized Christendom. The catholics have their twisted priests. We have our swaggarts, bakers, and skirt chasers on evangelical TV.
Moral Authority, that this author bows down to in the final statement smacks of idolatry.
EVERY BODY KNOWS Moral Authority flows from MORAL BEHAVIOR.
There is NO OTHER WAY to demonstrate it, earn it or keep it.
Moral Authority does NOT flow from an organization.
It comes from lving a Godly lifestyle. And God, is NOT a pervert, a pedophile or a serial adulteror, drug addict or chronic alchoholic.
When leaders behave, moral authority is a given, and no article is needed to "prop up" the faithful. The Sheep have an ear for their shepherd, and I have it on good authority, that they will not follow after hirelings.
Bingo.
Your "common-sense" questions have been slam-dunked over and over again here on FR -- and, I might add, over and over again over the last two millenia as well, by people a lot smarter than I. If you really want answers to your questions, there are dozens of sites on the Internet you can turn to for answers -- EWTN and Catholic Answers to name only two.
But, of course, you're not really looking for answers. You're looking to smash some icons.
And, like the Iconoclasts, your intentions are good: you believe that we Catholics are following another Gospel straight to Hell and that it's your duty to save us if you can. I appreciate your concern. Believe me, I do. The problem, however, is that your basic premise is wrong; it is your brand of homebrew Christianity that is wrong, not out two-thousand-year-old Catholic, orthodox belief. You criticize our infallible Magisterium, yet you have appointed yourself a Papacy of One, and deign to rule infallibly on matters of faith and morals. Let anyone who disagrees with Pope BibChr's private interpretation of the Scriptures be anathema!
Well, if I'm going to end up with a Papacy either way, I'll stick with the one established by Christ Himself -- at least they serve up the dogma straight, without the chaser of bitter sanctimony. I will of course continue to correct any errors or misstatements about the Church I read here on FR, but I refuse to exchange rancor for rancor with you. There is literally nothing I or anyone else can say that is going to make you change your mind, so why waste time and bandwidth? Instead, I'm going to pray for you. I'm going to pray that the Holy Spirit drag you kicking and screaming to the doorstep of St. Peter's, as He did me. I'm going to pray that through the intercession of Our Lady Mary, Mother of God, and St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse and Patron of the Universal Church, Christ present you with the Truth of our Catholic faith in a way not even you can deny.
God bless you, BibChr. I know your heart is in the right place -- but your facts are wrong, and your attitude is wrong. "No Pope is going to tell me how to believe!" Well, keep in mind that Christianity is a religion of submission to authority; non serviam is the Devil's motto.
Have a blessed Holy Week.
Nope. These aren't Protestant fundamentalists we're talking about, they're secular humanist hedonists. Their problem is that the Church preaches that abortion is murder and sex belongs within marriage.
Since you agree with us both of those things, I'm left wondering why you go out of your way to take the side of the Culture of Death against your brothers and sisters in Christ. Whom do you really serve?
Christians believe that moral authority flows ultimately from God. The personal misbehavior of people God employs to speak moral truth may give some a convenient excuse to ignore that truth, but the truth is the truth no matter what sort of scumbag happens to be proclaiming it.
You're quite adept at absurd.
He mentioned this, I think. Talked about an acorn and an oak tree, and a mustard seed.
The Son of God who was born in a humlbe stable and died on a cross for us never ever intended for his disciples to live in palaces, sit on golden thrones, amass vast quantities of wealth and treasure, and lord it over people.
"Intend it"? No ... but he did expect it. Why else do you think there are crystal-clear warnings against the abuse of such things in the Gospels? Luke 12:35-48 is in the Bible for a reason. Jesus wasn't wasting his breath.
You haven't answered any of my questions, still, BTW -- unless you're saying that you can disagree about politics without being a hateful bigot, but you cannot do so about religion. Which makes absolutely no sense.
Dan
There are folks that worship an invisible Christ, and those that worship visible, man-made, unbiblical religious structures and institutions.
Institutions fail, men fall, as do the organizations that hire them for pay. Acting LIKE Jesus, guarantees moral authority. NOT acting like him, diminishes it, regardless of the particular and peculiar claims of verity and truth, the organization one is a member of makes.
I strongly support YOUR right to believe it your way. I also strongly disagree with the RC position on their own "moral authority" in this matter. Pedophiles do NOT represent Christ. Neither do organizations that provide them with cover and employment. THAT is what I believe.
Taking the body of Christ from the hands of a man who, moments before has been fondling the unmentionable aspects of an altar boy's privates... is blasphemous to some of us.
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.