Double Standard

  • Thread starter Thread starter texinmi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for your answer. Does your dissatisfaction with the leadership alter your participation? Do you contribute as much of your time and money as you would if the leadership conducted itself in a manner that inspired?
I contribute my time and talent (such as it is) because I love the Church, as such, and her liturgy, in spite of many of her leaders. I am a sacristan at my parish, I lector, I assist in the preparation of various ceremonies and I love to do all that. I contribute to my parish–to the Church at its most local level–where none of this has happened. I know enough to know that the money I drop into the collection basket is going to the maintenance of my parish’s buildings and grounds, to the parish sandwich program (for the homeless) and that sort of thing, not to a group of cardinals in Rome.

And it isn’t that I detest the institution or the Pope or the offices that some of these blameworthy prelates hold. I revere the papacy, of course, as I am sure Catholics did during the reign of Alexander VI (now, don’t take that to mean I am comparing Benedict XVI with Alexander VI; far from it). It’s just that the current leadership has really fouled-out on this issue.

It is frustrating that there isn’t much one can actually do about it. Or so it seems, of course, until we realize that God can…and will…in his good time. In the meantime, what can we do but leave it in God’s hands, trusting in his righteous justice, and being the best Christians and Catholics that we can be, in spite of the failings of our leaders.

And we can also have the courage to be honest and to be frank, without making apologies for people who have scandalized the Church and indeed the whole world; without attempting to awkwardly and finally foolishly defend that which cannot be defended. We must have the courage to say: “the leaders of the Church have acted wrongly”. And we watch them a little bit more closely as we go about the business of being faithful Christians.
 
I give them more of my time and money. Times of trouble is not the time for true believers to walk away. There is absolutely nothing the men who are leaders in this church can do to turn me away from the one true faith. Nothing
To the extent you are willing to have an open mind, this kind of blind loyalty and blank check to the leadership of any organization can enable corruption and weakness. It is certainly not a deterrant.

The Lutheran Church has now accepted homosexual ministers. There are probably a lot of Lutherans who defend that faith with words similar to yours. It can be dangerous to allow leaders to think you will accept anything they do. The reason I am considering Catholicism is because my original faith has left me and pursued evil. I won’t follow.
 
I thank everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut.

Pregustator, it is refreshing to find there are Catholics who feel as you do. Your response makes a more compelling case for joining than anything I have witnessed from Rome. Perhaps the Pope should give you a call.
 
To the extent you are willing to have an open mind, this kind of blind loyalty and blank check to the leadership of any organization can enable corruption and weakness. It is certainly not a deterrant.

The Lutheran Church has now accepted homosexual ministers. There are probably a lot of Lutherans who defend that faith with words similar to yours. It can be dangerous to allow leaders to think you will accept anything they do. The reason I am considering Catholicism is because my original faith has left me and pursued evil. I won’t follow.
I believe with my whole heart that when Jesus said Gates of hell would not prevail against his church he was speaking the truth. Again I’m not about to let a miniscule number of clergymen ,compared to the overwhelming majority of clergy that have served the church faithfully over the last 2000 Years ,drive me away from the one true church.

Having spent four years in the seminary and my whole life intimately involved with the church and having many many Priests as close frineds I can assure you that the clergy because these problems are the exception not the rule.

If you are looking for church whose clergy has not been guilty of the homosexual abuse we saw in the Catholic Church you are never going to find one
 
Dear Tex: I really hope you “cast your vote” in favor of the Church! In making this decision, and given your background, a few thoughts regarding “obediance” and loyalty may help.

When Catholics talk about loyalty, they usually mean to the Church, not to its leaders per se. We can either love the current pope or hate him, but we are loyal to “the papacy.” Bad bishops and priests are the same: in the old days, we confined them to isolated monasteries! (The state won’t let us do this any longer :mad:) The loyalty you read about in these posts mostly refers to the institutions, or the structure, which we believe to be divinely inspired. We acknowledge that the men who fill the post may be wicked, but deny that the post itself makes them wicked.

Our view of loyalty affects our understanding of “reform.” In the Protestant context, reform is usually institutional: offices are abolished, new communities are formed, and such. Catholics view reform as aimed at individual actors: remove bad priests, pray more, create new disciplines (often prayer based, sometimes with a spiritual mentor or “policeman!”) get new priests.

I hope these thoughts help clarify a bit - and please join us because we need all the help we can get!
 
Dear Tex: I really hope you “cast your vote” in favor of the Church! In making this decision, and given your background, a few thoughts regarding “obediance” and loyalty may help.

When Catholics talk about loyalty, they usually mean to the Church, not to its leaders per se. We can either love the current pope or hate him, but we are loyal to “the papacy.” Bad bishops and priests are the same: in the old days, we confined them to isolated monasteries! (The state won’t let us do this any longer :mad:) The loyalty you read about in these posts mostly refers to the institutions, or the structure, which we believe to be divinely inspired. We acknowledge that the men who fill the post may be wicked, but deny that the post itself makes them wicked.

Our view of loyalty affects our understanding of “reform.” In the Protestant context, reform is usually institutional: offices are abolished, new communities are formed, and such. Catholics view reform as aimed at individual actors: remove bad priests, pray more, create new disciplines (often prayer based, sometimes with a spiritual mentor or “policeman!”) get new priests.

I hope these thoughts help clarify a bit - and please join us because we need all the help we can get!
I don’t think we’re at liberty to love or hate anyone, but obliged to love all men (difficult thought that may be). Certainly we are called to love one another, and that includes the pope, of course. But loving him doesn’t mean making excuses for him when he errs. I speak of no particular pope in making that statement; I put it out there as a general precept to apply to any pope.
in the old days, we confined them to isolated monasteries! (The state won’t let us do this any longer :mad:)
Yes, that was the problem. They shouldn’t have been sent to monasteries, but to the authorities and, if convicted, to prison. Alas, it wasn’t just in “the old days” as the recent news reports have shown the world: this garbage with our bishops hiding criminal priests is going on today.

Perhaps by “bad bishops and priests” you weren’t referring to child abusers and those who presided over cover-ups, but bishops and priests who were just no good, in general. If that’s the case, it’s a dreamy revision of history to say that all bad priests and bishops were detected, somehow, and sent away to monasteries. Alas, the Church has no Willy Wonka “bad egg” detector. As a result of the Church being human, there are bad eggs in the clergy. Many a bad priest became a bad bishop, and many a bad bishop became a bad archbishop, cardinal, or Vatican official. Some bad bishops would even follow their career paths to become bad popes. Christ himself picked Judas to be an apostle.

Others, by the grace of God, are good priests, wonderful bishops, worthy prelates, and extraordinary popes.

And between the two extremes there are priests, prelates and popes who fall somewhere between adequate and above average. The Church is Divinely-instituted, but human in composition. I understand that her leaders can and do fail, just as I can and do. But when they fail so appallingly, as in the case of the abuse and cover-up scandal, the Church must hold her leaders accountable, demand answers, demand reform, and, where necessary, demand their resignations. Furthermore, as civic Christians, we must see to it that criminal priests who abuse children are brought to justice, not hidden from justice. Likewise we must demand an account of bishops who have hidden child abusers. They too must be brought to justice.

Finally, when the media reports these stories we should rejoice, not be angry, that some organ is able to bring these matters to light, so that the Church must acknowledge its sickness and treat it. We must not become indignant and blame the “liberal, ant-Catholic media” for “attacking the Holy Father” and “attacking the Church.” That sort of conspiracy-theory mentality is for fringe lunatics, not for mainstream Catholics. If we look at this from that sort of “attack on the Church” mentality, it would be easy enough to convince ourselves that the Church has done no wrong, and the media has just made all of this up.

Unfortunately, it would seem that there are some very highly-placed Church authorities who would love nothing more than for Catholics to convince themselves that that is indeed the case: that the true criminals are the reporters and the media moguls who, for some unknown reason, are out to get the Pope and the Church. Happily, except for the most unthinking of Catholics swimming in the shallow end of the pool, we have not convinced ourselves of any such thing, and most of us seem plenty willing to blame and demand accountability from our bishops and priests, and not the media who tell their foul stories.
 
Every single week day at 1:30 PM, the homeless food program opens in the main hall. Co-incidentally, the priests who have just celebrated Mass also happen to come down at 1:30 to use the private room. As the latter is fully and readily visible from the former, the homeless can very easily observe the movements of the priests and their guests, including the food for that afternoon. While our homeless outreach hands its unhealthy, rubbish sandwiches to the poor, filling them with salty bologna and poor-quality cheese, the same people see those priests feasting on the most sumptuous lamb and varieties of fish, paraded as it were in front of their very eyes.
Diocesan bishops and priests earn a salary. It isn’t right to expect them to live in poverty just because many who they serve live in poverty. It is fine for the bishop and the cathedral priests to have lunch together, and it can be a nice lunch if they can afford one. On the other hand, they could be more sensitive about what is going on near where they are having their nice lunch. Maybe someone who coordinates the homeless lunch could meet with someone who coordinates the clergy lunch and they could resolve the situation.
 
Love or hate, in a manner of speaking of course. It’s hard either to love or hate someone one does not know personally.

I disagree when you say bad bishops and priests were not punished and confined by the Church. The history of the Church has many instances when this occurred. The civil authorities generally could not punish the clergy because they did not have jurisdiction over them (this survived in English law as the “benefit of clergy” test). I cannot fathom why anyone would think the civil authority is essentially better able to judge and punish the clergy than the Church is. The civil authorities have been attempting to govern marraige for the past two centuries, and their record is dismal at best.

It’s hard to imagine anyone rejoicing over stories of priests having sex with members of their flock, just as it is hard to imagine anyone does not recognize the strong anti Catholic tone in much of US media. I do not think this is a conspiracy, merely a bias.

The purpose of my post was really to highlight the different understandings of “reform” between many Protestants and most Catholics. Catholics tend to see reform in the sense that President Obama uses the word, not in the sense that Che Guevarra used it.

I do believe that discipline was better in the Church when the Church controlled it, as a whole. Of course, there were areas where discipline was lax. But at the same time, there were vast areas where the civil writ simply did not run.
 
Love or hate, in a manner of speaking of course. It’s hard either to love or hate someone one does not know personally.

I disagree when you say bad bishops and priests were not punished and confined by the Church. The history of the Church has many instances when this occurred. The civil authorities generally could not punish the clergy because they did not have jurisdiction over them (this survived in English law as the “benefit of clergy” test). I cannot fathom why anyone would think the civil authority is essentially better able to judge and punish the clergy than the Church is. The civil authorities have been attempting to govern marraige for the past two centuries, and their record is dismal at best.

It’s hard to imagine anyone rejoicing over stories of priests having sex with members of their flock, just as it is hard to imagine anyone does not recognize the strong anti Catholic tone in much of US media. I do not think this is a conspiracy, merely a bias.

The purpose of my post was really to highlight the different understandings of “reform” between many Protestants and most Catholics. Catholics tend to see reform in the sense that President Obama uses the word, not in the sense that Che Guevarra used it.

I do believe that discipline was better in the Church when the Church controlled it, as a whole. Of course, there were areas where discipline was lax. But at the same time, there were vast areas where the civil writ simply did not run.
As someone who is not Catholic but considering it, I am completely unaware of any Church discipline. Where does the Church imprison criminals?

While the media certainly has an anti-God bias, they cannot create the scandal nor the weak response to it. Leaders don’t blame reporters, they fix the problem and use the opportunity to demonstrate their conviction.

My question(s) are a search for the standard in the Church. All organizations publish documents that describe how they want to be perceived. The actual standard is defined by the weakest person in the organization. The performance and behavior of the weakest person that you won’t fire is your real standard (or you would fire them). As an outsider who is ignorant of the Catholic Church “discipline”, the standard for its officials seems very low.
 
I briefly read through the post and am amazed at how many paint our clergy with a broad brush. As one poster indicated, 98%, I would say closer to 99% of these men faithfully follow their call by the Lord.
To those that haven’t, the leaders of the Church are working to right those wrongs.
As Catholics, we want to know why more men do not want to enter the priesthood. Read some of these post and you have part of your answer.
Support you preist and Bishops with your prayers and actions!
 
Hello again Tex: The Church does not discipline its members any longer except on a more or less voluntary basis. It can hire and fire at will, and it can suspend priests and bishops from exercising their functions, it can re-assign them, but that is not “punishment” in the legal sense of the word because the clergy have the power to leave the Church. Historically, however, the Church had the power to exact punishment that was more or less equivalent to the civil authorities’ power. When someone gets convicted in a state court for drunk driving, he does not have a choice whether to pay the fine or go to jail.

You ask what standard applies to priests and bishops, and it seems that the most helpful answer would be to compare the standard with other entities. The standard for formation and investigation of priests has been higher than in organizations where there is no oversight at all. I am thinking of the pastor in California who had the torture chamber in his back yard. His was a very small church, and there was no one to censure or investigate him, so obviously, almost any hierarchy is better than that.

In terms of total number of allegations of abuse, in the USA, the Church’s standards are better than the public school system as a whole, which I think runs about 1000 cases alleged each year. Almost by definition, most of those cases concern people not legally capable of consent.

Regarding the handling of the abuse scandals, the Church has done about as well as governments tend to do. Depending on the government, maybe somewhat worse, maybe somewhat better. Consider how long the gross mismanagement of the Viet Nam war was concealed, and how many soldiers were killed or wounded as a result. For decades thereafter, the Agent Orange effects were denied, concealed, and only belatedly acknowledged.

If the Church is judged by its worst member, then clearly, it is deficient. Even if it is judged by its best member, it would still be deficient. Remember St. Paul’s warning: the strength of sin is the law."

If you read the posts in your thread, do you think that Catholics are concerned with the scandals afflicting the Church, or do you think that they do not care? You seem to be person of considerable experience: did you often hear an ex Nazi, or Communist, or ex cabinet member or judge express remorse for the injustices they perpetrated or tolerated? Were they as sincere, or more so, than the sentiments expressed by people in the Church?

You posed a tough question, and the indictment must be confessed. Everybody knows the Church failed under her own standards: the whole world has seen it, one suspects. I think perhaps the answer to your question lies, at least in part, in knowing the standard you require of your church.

May the Lord guide you in your decision!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top