I have read a couple of books that critizise Catholicism, and rather often I find that the author quotes a Catholic expert who says things that sound very un-Catholic — or anti-Catholic even.
For instance, Richard Bennett in his book “Catholicism east of eden” quotes “Donald Cozzens, leading Catholic priest and rector of St. Mary’s in Cleveland Ohio” as saying that studies show that anywhere between 23% and 58% of the clergy are homosexual.
The figure is of course outrageous, but I was wondering how Bennett could quote a Catholic for saying it.
Are there just some really “liberal” Catholic sholars out there, or is Bennett mis-quoting? When is a person called Catholic? Is it enough to have been baptized into the Church as a kid and never have renounced the faith officially?
-CB
If something is true, then so be it. Is that figure true ? If it is true, then it is to Father Cozzens’ credit that he says something which will probably win him enemies. If it is not true - well, such things have been said before, & will in all likelihood be said again. What other mere human beings may say, should not be a consideration: God, & God alone, is to be feared - men are nothing by comparison.
AFAICS, facts are neither Catholic nor anti-Catholic; that, lies in the way in which facts (or fictions, indeed) are used. What a Catholic says may be unwelcome - that’s not the same as it’s being incompatible with being Catholic: Isaiah was far harsher in his condemnations of certain behaviours among his fellow-Jerusalemites, than any Catholic liberal appears to be. He refers to Jerusalem as “Sodom” (see chapter 1 for details) - what Bill Donohue would say if a “liberal” called Rome Sodom, I don’t want to imagine; I don’t think that he would be pleased
Amos was not a crowd-pleaser either - far from it. As for Jesus: if He had said of the Catholic clergy what he said of the Pharisees, He would probably have been very severely criticised by Catholics. Dante referred to Rome as “a sewer of blood and filth” (Paradiso, Canto 27), & put three, perhaps four, Popes in Hell; yet he has been honoured by several, from Pius IX to Paul VI - & rightly too. When he wrote, in the early 1300s, vigorous criticism of the Church & the clergy was usual among Catholics; there was much to criticise. Only since the Reformation has this idea made headway, that a “good Catholic” will not criticise either.
Surely it is better to point to what seem to be flaws, deficiencies, abuses, & sins in the Church, rather than that they should be misdescribed as good, healthy, desirable or right ? And surely it is better for Catholics to do so, than for us to wait until these things are so undeniable that those who love the Church not one bit, but see it as a synagogue of satan instead, even when it is healthier, should be the first to find fault ? If people love the Church, and criticise evil or seeming evil in it, because they desire that God should be glorified by its being holy & pure & spotless & obedient to Him - these surely are true friends of the Church, whether they are Catholics, or not. Such an attitude is a long way from enmity to the Church.
