Anti-Catholic Attack

[capoly]

You are quite right in this which is why, in addition to cleaning up the matter, in addition to defending the Church from unfair or malicious attacks etc…

Just curious… do you assert that all the attacks on the church are “unfair” and “malicious”? Or maybe some attacks are fair and proper?

This is necessary so that others recognize in us, in the Church as a whole, a desire to cut out this cancer without destroying the entire body - most of which is quite healthy.

Sure thing. But you may have missed my point. Here it is in a few bullets.

• The church is supposed to be protected by the holy spirit from making errors in the case of morals.
• We agree that the attempts to cover up the misconduct of some people was a morally indefensible act.
• Therefore the holy spirit did not protect the church from making this error…

which means that either the holy spirit does not exist, or it does not protect the church from making morally indefensible decisions.

 

[The_Scott]

Just curious… do you assert that all the attacks on the church are “unfair” and “malicious”? Or maybe some attacks are fair and proper?

Sure thing. But you may have missed my point. Here it is in a few bullets.

• The church is supposed to be protected by the holy spirit from making errors in the case of morals.
• We agree that the attempts to cover up the misconduct of some people was a morally indefensible act.
• Therefore the holy spirit did not protect the church from making this error…

which means that either the holy spirit does not exist, or it does not protect the church from making morally indefensible decisions.

That doesn’t mean that the clerics within the Church are infallible or impeccable. The Church (as a whole, not as a part) is infallible in its teachings on morals.

 

[JRKH]

Just curious… do you assert that all the attacks on the church are “unfair” and “malicious”? Or maybe some attacks are fair and proper?

While I would refrain from using the term “attack” i will say that it is quite right and proper to say that the Church hierarchy should be held to a higher standard - but that it needs to be done fairly.

Sure thing. But you may have missed my point. Here it is in a few bullets.

• The church is supposed to be protected by the holy spirit from making errors in the case of morals.
• We agree that the attempts to cover up the misconduct of some people was a morally indefensible act.
• Therefore the holy spirit did not protect the church from making this error…

which means that either the holy spirit does not exist, or it does not protect the church from making morally indefensible decisions.

Well this will get off onto a different topic…the definition of “Church” for the purpose of inerrancy in her teachings and actions.

The Holy Spirit does indeed protect the Church (as an institution and unified body) from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.
However, this does not extend to the actions of her members. They can and do sin…

The bible addresses this in a couple of different places but the best is in Mt 18:15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Now look carefully at this and you will see that the whole premise is that one “brother” sins against another…so the Brethren, the believer can sin. So keep this in mind…
The passage then goes on to say that if the problem cannot be resolved quietly, they are to “Tell it to The Church” and to “Listen to The Church”. The Church has the final word on the matter. WHY?? Jesus goes on to say that it is because the Church has the authority to “Bind and Loose” - “Whatever”.

SO - - -

While the individual members of the Church can and will sin, the Church herself, cannot teach error.

Does that help??

Peace
James

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Much simpler reply: Judas betrayed Jesus to the Romans. Peter denied Him three times. Thomas doubted that He had returned.

All three of them were apostles.

And yet we’re discussing whether or not PRIESTS can sin? Of course!

 

[aragonjohn1]

There are some important points made in the thread but I think you all miss one point, which is the most important one. Clearly, child abuse happens all over the world, and probably the catholic abusers are few and far between - compared to the non-catholic ones. (Not that this would be an excuse). Cover-ups also happen all the time, everywhere. Where there are guilty people, they all try to escape discovery, with all kinds of nefarious means.

The actual problem is that it happened within the catholic church, which proclaims, loud and clear, that the church is the foremost arbiter and defender of morality, that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that makes the church inerrant in the case of morals. This is why the events were so shocking.

Now before someone would argue that these were all indivuduals who did the abuse and conducted the cover-up, that is correct. But the church is the sum of its members, from the pope, down to the bishops and so on, which makes the problem much more serious. Was there not one of the upper echelons in the church who was aware of what happened, and who was guided by the Holy Spirit to come clean in true and just moral indignation, and stop the shuffling of the offending priests? Apperently none.

So it is not just the abuse which is the problem, and not just the cover up which is so scandalous, it is the credibility of the whole church which came into question.

themediareport.com

for more real factual information on that

SHALOM
GOD BLESS

 

[studychristian]

When I hear anti-Catholic talk it angers me, because many of the people saying these things are totally unknowledgable on the Church. To me Protestantism feels like Create-Your-Own Christianity

 

[Trebor135]

Why? Which part of it is incorrect? I merely observed what the church claims for itself, inerracy in the case of faith and morals, guided by the Holy Spirit. The events do not seem to support it.

Your analysis was unfair because you were knocking down a straw man. Catholicism doesn’t claim that its hierarches will be protected from grave sin. Its doctrine of infallibility refers to the notion that the hierarches will be protected from teaching error officially.

The constantly repeated charge of cover-up masks the fact that many bishops and religious superiors were following the standard operating procedures of the times.

Not much of an argument. Others did it, too. Bah, humbug.

The point is that it’s disingenuous to single out Catholic clergy when no one else is being thus lambasted regularly.

In 1952, 1966, 1974 or 1982, neither parents nor police were publicly decrying how bishops handled these matters. In those times, if journalists knew about it, they weren‟t saying any more than they did about John Kennedy‟s multiple marital infidelities.

These are not the same, not by a long shot. Kennedy’s escapades had nothing to do with his competency as president.

I agree that it isn’t a very good analogy.

1. a justifiable fear of gravely harming the Church by being open about this issue, or 3) an, in hindsight, bewildering incompetency? Probably a combination of the second (and in their defense, note how these revelations have hurt the Church) and third (no one suggests the bishops did anything right).

It is not a defense that the “fear became reality”. The church is the defender of morality, and coming clean immediately would have strengthened the church’s position. Just like in the case of Clinton, his affair with Monica Lewinsky would have been shrugged off if he admitted it up front.

The author writes in the same paragraph, “It was not the fact of the matter that bishops were sitting around conspiring actively to encourage priests to go and molest more children. Bishops, parents, cops — and everyone else in the decades preceding the sexual revolution of the late 1960s — did not deal openly or forthrightly about sexual matters. Bishops probably wanted to handle these matters quickly and quietly and get on to other concerns.” It’s anachronistic to expect any group to act a few decades ago as if opperating on a view of an issue that we’ve adopted only rather recently.

In 1990, Judgment, a good and balanced movie starring Keith Carradine and Blythe Danner presented the excruciatingly difficult choices bishops confronted. In one scene, the bishop wants to reach out pastorally to the family of children abused by a priest character based on the real life Gilbert Gauthe. The lawyers tell the bishop that, if he meets with the family, he will be admitting guilt. He is told that he can speak with the family or save the diocese from financial ruin. But he cannot do both.

Looks like money was more important then the spiritual aim of the church.

If an entire diocese is potentially at risk of bankruptcy, the spiritual welfare of many Catholics is on the line. Even so, a fundraising campaign could have been held to offset the costs.

Most of them did the best they could with the resources and within the cultural mores available at the time. The problem is: what do we do now and in the future?

Is the church supposed to be influenced by the cultural mores of the time? You gotta be kidding me.

No, but it’s highly anachronistic to expect those who didn’t know then what we know now–namely, that psychological/psychiatric treatment doesn’t cure pedophilia–to have acted as if we’ve been aware of that fact for generations.

 

[kyleboerner]

Fight back using objective reason. Their anti-Catholic rhetoric would be demolished using objective reason.

Thank you Crescentinus - I will exercise reason during the next occurrence. It is great to see Catholic schools/colleges continuing to promote and instruct the art of critical reasoning.

 

[kyleboerner]

It’s interesting that your friends assume a married man would be less likely to sexually abuse a minor than would an unmarried man. Have they any data to support that claim? I’ve practiced criminal law for 20 years and it’s news to me. Also, it sounds to me like they’re saying the guilty priests are not fully responsible because celibacy causes perversion, as if anyone who is denied sex would resort to molestation. That argument lets abusers off the hook way too easily. Doesn’t sound like they’ve thought their arguments through.

Outstanding Gamera! As many have mentioned before, the anti-catholic attack has no reason/logic in its foundation. They definitely failed to think their argument through, which is why I titled this post “attack” - because it came out of nowhere and was aimed in my direction for all the wrong reasons.

 

[kyleboerner]

While I would refrain from using the term “attack” i will say that it is quite right and proper to say that the Church hierarchy should be held to a higher standard - but that it needs to be done fairly.

Well this will get off onto a different topic…the definition of “Church” for the purpose of inerrancy in her teachings and actions.

The Holy Spirit does indeed protect the Church (as an institution and unified body) from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.
However, this does not extend to the actions of her members. They can and do sin…

The bible addresses this in a couple of different places but the best is in Mt 18:15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Now look carefully at this and you will see that the whole premise is that one “brother” sins against another…so the Brethren, the believer can sin. So keep this in mind…
The passage then goes on to say that if the problem cannot be resolved quietly, they are to “Tell it to The Church” and to “Listen to The Church”. The Church has the final word on the matter. WHY?? Jesus goes on to say that it is because the Church has the authority to “Bind and Loose” - “Whatever”.

SO - - -

While the individual members of the Church can and will sin, the Church herself, cannot teach error.

Does that help??

Peace
James

Great quote selection James!

 

[kyleboerner]

When I hear anti-Catholic talk it angers me, because many of the people saying these things are totally unknowledgable on the Church. To me Protestantism feels like Create-Your-Own Christianity

very true - which is why individual members of denominations find it so easy to leave and start their own church.

 

[kyleboerner]

themediareport.com

for more real factual information on that

SHALOM
GOD BLESS

aragonjohn - thank you for the website. great share!

 

[aragonjohn1]

aragonjohn - thank you for the website. great share!

you’re welcome : )

thanks

Shalom
God Bless

 

[capoly]

I think that a summary post is due here. You all argue that the “church” as an institution is “protected” from making errors in judgment when if comes to moral decisions. You also say that individual members can and do err.

So far so good.

The error you make here is that you assume that there “church” is somehow different from its members. One or two or a thousand members can make mistakes… but ALL the members? That is the point here. There was NOT one member who would have been “enlightened” by the holy spirit and properly “nudged” to come clean even if the wrath of the wole hierarchy would descend on him.

And the “church” does not make declarations. The “church” does not define dogma. When people use the term: “the church teaches”, or “the church believes”, they use a convenient shortcut. The church is just a human institution, composed of fallible individuals. And if all the members are “fallible”, then the institution is fallible, too. And it was demonstrated in the child-abuse case, when not one of the responsible people had the moral courage to stand up and proclaim: “we are wrong”. When it was impossible to deny the case any further, when the “cat was out of the bag”, then and only then came the admission. To end this on a humorous note, read this funny, tongue-in-cheek article from the Onion: theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/ - just please, do NOT take it seriously!!!

 

[JRKH]

I think that a summary post is due here. You all argue that the “church” as an institution is “protected” from making errors in judgment when if comes to moral decisions. You also say that individual members can and do err.

So far so good.

The error you make here is that you assume that there “church” is somehow different from its members. One or two or a thousand members can make mistakes… but ALL the members? That is the point here. There was NOT one member who would have been “enlightened” by the holy spirit and properly “nudged” to come clean even if the wrath of the wole hierarchy would descend on him.

And the “church” does not make declarations. The “church” does not define dogma. When people use the term: “the church teaches”, or “the church believes”, they use a convenient shortcut. The church is just a human institution, composed of fallible individuals. And if all the members are “fallible”, then the institution is fallible, too.

Your view is a common one but it does not hold up to examination. It is not true that the “institution” is necessarily as fallible as the members that make it up…
Let’s take the example of just a single individual. Most of us are a dichotomy within ourselves - split between what we know to be right vs actually being able to act perfectly on that knowledge. We can sit and discuss and advise others on matters - giving good sound and truthful advice on what we know to be right. Yet if we found ourselves in the very situation that they are in, it’s hard to say whether we would act perfectly in accordance to that which we firmly and convincingly believe and teach.
It is just a fact of life. I think in psychological terms this might be termed the split between the 'Id" and the “Super Ego”.

Taking this to a group level…when a group comes together for the purpose of defining “ideals” for the purpose of teaching others the same principle applies. The group can, after much discussion, come to agreement on what they believe to be entirely correct - the ideal. However, the ability of each member - or even large groups of the membership including the leadership - to live up to these ideals may fall short. Yet each person, if they are true, will not say “the ideals are wrong” or “the institution is wrong”, they will say - “I was wrong”.

Hence the institution - in this case the Church - remains perfect in her teachings. Infallible in her teachings. But fallible in the execution by individuals.

And it was demonstrated in the child-abuse case, when not one of the responsible people had the moral courage to stand up and proclaim: “we are wrong”. When it was impossible to deny the case any further, when the “cat was out of the bag”, then and only then came the admission.

We do not know this. We do not know what conversations occurred within the church hierarchy and among the various diocesan officials over the years. We do not know who spoke up or when. So to say that, “not one responsible (person) had the moral courage to stand up” is trying to make a statement of fact without all the evidence.

To end this on a humorous note, read this funny, tongue-in-cheek article from the Onion: theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/ - just please, do NOT take it seriously!!!

Forgive me if I choose not to. Frankly I find nothing in this situation to be humorous, either from the fact that it occurred in the first place or in the fact that the media has seen fit to exploit it to the extent they have.

Peace
James

 

[XRU]

Raised in a Protestant background I heard a number of anti-Catholic comment. I dismissed them then as I dismiss them now as I love my Catholic Brothers and Sisters

I’m very aware of the anti-Catholic slant in the media and I find it perverse and an abomination. Certainly, members of the Catholic ministry sin just like the leaders in every other religion of the world . . . so. That just means they are human just like me.

I have every confidence in the Catholic Church (the administration) to fix this. I would guess that there was a bit of spin doctoring (although I could not say for sure) as this is human too, but from what I’ve read administration if doing okay now.

I have a Catholic friend who was afraid to tell me he is Catholic because certain people gave him flack for this child abuse thing. I told him that that is and administrative and correction problem and that he never should be ashamed that he’s a Catholic.

This whole “get a Catholic” thing really burns me up.

 

[The_Scott]

Raised in a Protestant background I heard a number of anti-Catholic comment. I dismissed them then as I dismiss them now as I love my Catholic Brothers and Sisters

I’m very aware of the anti-Catholic slant in the media and I find it perverse and an abomination. Certainly, members of the Catholic ministry sin just like the leaders in every other religion of the world . . . so. That just means they are human just like me.

I have every confidence in the Catholic Church (the administration) to fix this. I would guess that there was a bit of spin doctoring (although I could not say for sure) as this is human too, but from what I’ve read administration if doing okay now.

I have a Catholic friend who was afraid to tell me he is Catholic because certain people gave him flack for this child abuse thing. I told him that that is and administrative and correction problem and that he never should be ashamed that he’s a Catholic.

This whole “get a Catholic” thing really burns me up.

Thank you for your great words!! It seems, at least to me, that we must apologize for being Catholic. This is true for conservative Christians as well, but I feel in particular it’s more true for Catholics.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Anti-Catholic attacks have been common in my life, esp. from family and friends.

Anti-Catholic attacks pertaining to the “child abuse scandal” was recently brought up and the typical statements were made; “priests should be married”, etc., etc.

However, the only roadblock that came up for me was when the following statements were made; “the vatican covered it up”, “the vatican moved priests to different churches”, “why didn’t the vatican send the priests to jail”, “the vatican thought counseling would suffice”, and all the other typical statements you hear in mainstream news/media that make the Vatican look like a corrupt politician and give lots of ammunition (more like blanks) to anti-catholics.

Since I ignore most of the mainstream news (given their anti-catholic stance), I was hoping you could help me out and shed some light on this topic. Does anyone have facts, links to accurate news stories, and advice on how to respond to these anti-catholic remarks? How did the Vatican respond, what are the typical false stories and what are the actual true stories?

I know how to respond to the abuse remarks by highlighting that it is a human problem that takes place among families, schools, other denominations/religions, and other groups like the boy scouts; however I come to a wall out of a lack of knowledge on accurate information as to what the Vatican did/did not do in response to the “child abuse scandal”.

Thank you for your time, God Bless,
Kyle

You could point out that it is not just a RC problem but a societal problem. The Protestant communities are just as hard hit.

An Associated Press report brought to light that Protestant clergy abuse equals or exceeds Catholic clergy abuse. See article on it here.

Or about Baptist child predators StopBaptistPredators.org.

One can also find this discussion about insurance for Protestant clergy.

 

[Lrning]

I think that a summary post is due here. You all argue that the “church” as an institution is “protected” from making errors in judgment when if comes to moral decisions.

This is not correct. The protection of the Church is that it cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. In this case, the “Church” refers to the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, defined as the Pope and all Bishops united with him. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. So the Church will never teach that adultery is not sinful. Or that God is not a trinity of three divine persons. The protection of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with protecting any individual or group of individuals from making errors in judgment in moral decisions. Even if the Pope and every single Bishop were involved in adulterous affairs, that would not negate the protection of the Holy Spirit over the teaching authority of the Church. If the Pope and the Bishops taught that adultery was not a sin, now that would mean that the Holy Spirit was not protecting the Church from error.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This is not correct. The protection of the Church is that it cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. In this case, the “Church” refers to the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, defined as the Pope and all Bishops united with him. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. So the Church will never teach that adultery is not sinful. Or that God is not a trinity of three divine persons. The protection of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with protecting any individual or group of individuals from making errors in judgment in moral decisions. Even if the Pope and every single Bishop were involved in adulterous affairs, that would not negate the protection of the Holy Spirit over the teaching authority of the Church. If the Pope and the Bishops taught that adultery was not a sin, now that would mean that the Holy Spirit was not protecting the Church from error.

An excellent post. You’ve explained the role of the Magisterium quite nicely.