The Church They Love To Hate

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.

Your "unarguably legitimate question" to which I responded was whether the media bashed the Catholic Church because, among other things, "...it demands such devotion of its adherents that when it says white is black they are forced to compel their minds to accept the absurd."

Since you feel the need to pretend that you are incapable of seeing the presuppositions which you insert into your "plain-sense" questions, I leave you to your smugness.

JESUS said it flows from what you DO, not from an organization. By their fruits you WILL KNOW them.

That would be the same Jesus who pointed to the Pharisees and said "Obey their teaching, because they sit on Moses' seat, but do not follow their example"? And "by their fruits you will know them" tells you nothing about where moral authority comes from, but about how to tell a false prophet, of whom you are to beware, from a true one. I repeat: moral authority comes ultimately from God, not from any human's deeds. How you recognize that authority is a different question.

Of course, what Jesus said matters little here. Right?

Wrong. Just be sure you consider everything that Jesus said.

There are folks that worship an invisible Christ, and those that worship visible, man-made, unbiblical religious structures and institutions.

And then there are folks who make uncharitable accusations against others on the Internet. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is in the same chapter, of the same book, in the same Bible as "you will know them by their fruits". Why do you follow one, but not the other?

Pedophiles do NOT represent Christ.

Tell me, at what point during his affair with Bath-Sheba did David cease to be the King of Israel?

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

I'd venture to say that it's blasphemous to all of us, and that is as it should be. However, the sacrament remains what it is because it is what it is by the power and grace of God, not by the virtue of the priest.

...If the shepherds are pedophiles, and they are the one and only true voice speaking for God...

I have never met a pedophile priest, and I don't know personally anyone who has. I am a Catholic, and Newsweek or New York Times would be the last publications for me to search for the "truth" about my Church and my "shepherds."

...I think we see the fruit of organized religion manifest in so many perversions and distortions...

From your many biblical quotes I would think that you know WHO founded this "organized religion." One/twelfth of this organization was Judas, too.

...When leaders behave, moral authority is a given, and no article is needed to "prop up" the faithful…

The moral authority of the Church comes from her faithfulness to Christ and His Gospel, not from the behavior of one or two disturbed individuals.
The article is needed to expose the misinformation contained in the other publications.

Thanks, Bustard, for the calm reply. I will agree with you about the priests at the local parish level not being the ones I was referring to, and perhaps I could come up with a better term than "lord it over" (just the first thing to pop to mind). I certainly don't ever remember Father Larry from my local church acting that way (yes, I'm one of those dreaded born-again ex-Catholics...never thought I'd have that many hyphens associated with a description of myself!) It has more to do with how I perceive the highest echelons of the church (Rome).

I would love some good, solid, discourse on this kind of a subject but I'm still undecided if this is the best forum. I also have learned from experience here that even the slightest statement from someone critical of the RC church can draw some of the nastiest flames (and, to be fair, I've seen it go the other way, too).

Catholics on this forum may ask that since I am an ex-Catholic if maybe I don't have "issues" to work out. That may or may not be; I believe my issues are of a doctrinal nature mostly, and therefore born out of a concern for my fellow brethren who are still "in the Church", not any horrible experience that I had growing up in the Catholic church. On the contrary, I was very involved and, at the time, very committed to it, and I have fond memories of many of the priests and nuns that I knew.

I will agree with one aspect of this particular post, in that right now, it does look like the media is sort of "piling on", but I think that comes and goes, with the flavor of the day. A few weeks ago, it was Billy Graham, now it's the Catholics, next it will likely be some Protestant church/leader/? that gets dumped on.

Please bear with me if I'm a little dense today (I had to work all last night and was up for almost 24 hours straight, so am a little slow today). Could you give me a little more clarification on your position? I read the referenced scripture and am familiar with it, but I'm not sure if I understand if you are defending the Catholic church with that, or if you were agreeing with my statement (you probably were clear, but I'm just missing it today).

To put it briefly, my point was that what you describe is exactly the Church that Jesus told us to expect, warts and all. And you'll note that when Jesus talks about a "chief steward" who "drinks and abuses the servants," he doesn't add "and you should separate yourselves from him quickly, because that isn't 'the Church' anymore, 'the Church' has moved to Grace Bible Fellowship down the street." He says that "that servant will be cut in two and his portion appointed among the unbelievers".

The tares, sown by the enemy, which grow amidst the wheat aren't just a figure of speech.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I will agree with you on that point. I have seen too many church splits over things that are not doctrinal issues, but personal tastes.

I left the Catholic church due to my beliefs that serious doctrinal error crept into it centuries ago, and they have not been corrected, but in fact have been added to. I know that I don't stand a chance of convincing the RC defenders on this forum, but I do enjoy some of the dialogue. Also, that was an excellent scripture you chose to make your point (now that I understand your point!).

What would constitute an answer to that prayer [for Christian unity], from the Catholic perspective? IOW, what does "Christian Unity" mean to the Catholics that pray for it?

Unity of Christians will be possible only alongside a true conversion of all Christians. Conversion means following Christ in a committed way.

I guess, someone could ask this question:

- When will the Catholic Church loosen up the Gospel requirements so that they may become acceptable to everybody? ;-)

It may sound strange but I think the media is doing the Church a favor by spotlighting these perverts. For all the pro-homosexual propaganda the media spews, isn’t it fitting that they’ve actually struck a death blow to NAMBLA’s efforts to “normalize” pedophilia. What the Church does with these perverts is nothing compared to what Christ will do to them on Judgment Day if they don’t repent and reform.

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.

The Church They Love to Hate