How should we respond to the sterotypical portrayal of Catholic clergy as authoritarian?

[sidetrack]

This has always been a stick up in my craw.So often Catholic clergy people are sterotyped with inaccuracy and ignorance as being obessively strict and authoritarian espeically if the history of the Church is regarded.Here’s** my** personal view on that.I know that some people in this forum have actually had a fair amount of interaction with clergy people whether it be in their schooling,something in their personal lives or maybe they clergy people and thus have held them in high regards when regarding like ascendency.I might not ever had as much interaction with clergy people but I try to do this as well not just with Catholic clerics but I also try to do this when regarding clerics from other religions as well (obviously albeit a different way because I’m a Catholic,not a member of another religion).However in my mind personally I’ve always regarded the high esteem held for Catholic clergy people as a historically European thing (I’m from a mostly European derived culture for the most part) so that has’nt ever been like a totally venerable thing in my mind.Also about the role of the Catholic Church in European history.When your a newly developed monotheistic religion based on a Middle Eastern region on a continent with a culture that was before that point was more starkly individualistic and in general un-unified there’s most likely going to be some bloodshed when your trying to spread and give people a world-view as a common basis of personal development and existance even becoming a kind of a political entity your self if you have to espeically since something of this scope has never been tried before.Would there have been as many conflicts in Western history if the Christianity that influenced mostly Western Europe had been a form of Christianity much closer to or the same as the historically oldest Protestant denominations (like Lutheranism,Anglicanism etc) or the later ones that we know today?.Who knows ?!.No human being can answer that.That does’nt mean it would have been less likely that wars and stuff would have arisen if Catholicism had’nt *developed.You cant really use the role in politics the Church had as a reason to portray Catholicism as authoriation espeically if your talking about post-Medieval history.If your talking about the spread of Christianity and missionaries though, then that was mishandled by all denominations of Christianity to some extent.Tht kind of a different kettle of fish though.AT LEAST the Church now sees,realizes and knows in retrospect how things were mishandled AND will OBVIOUSLY try better when dealing with similar situations next time.

There are even those who have the gall to say that things would turned out better if Catholicism or (as implied in an episode of ever so inappropraite “Family Guy”) Christianity had’nt existed in the Middle ages.Seth MacFarlane has** no iota*** what that would’ve meant does he?.I mean what other options were there?.Sticking to the old polytheistic pantheons and it’s ritual sacrifices,lack of social involvement,magic and little explanation of human nature and destiny?.Does *he really think *that science,technology and society would have developed better under those conditions?.

 

[ExplosiveOxygen]

Let them know that you don’t support a theocracy.

 

[odile53]

I don’t know if people who hold stereotypes are that responsive to attempts on the part of others to educate them correctly. That holds true for all stereotypes, not just ones about Catholicism. Ideas based on stereotypes are, after all, the reason that such things as racial prejudice and other forms of chauvinism exist. You’ll probably find, on questioning, that these stereotypes are loosely based on illogical thought stemming from fiction, or historical but not currently valid facts.

Illogical thought doesn’t mean that the person is insane, it means that they are drawing erroneous conclusions. It’s difficult to challenge this kind of thinking.

In what kinds of situations are you encountering these folks? Frequently, a response to such things needs to be situationally appropriate to be effective. It wouldn’t do, for example, to turn a holiday meal into a shouting match over church stereotypes! Unfortunately, usually situations like that are exactly the types of settings where opinionated people like to hold forth.

I usually listen politely to people who have strange ideas of Catholicism, including the so called authoritarianism of the clergy, and other things. I first gauge whether or not they are interested in hearing something closer to the truth, or whether they are just looking for a forum to ventilate. If it’s the latter, I handle it the same way I’d handle any other crashingly boring individual socially–I politely excuse myself after a few minutes. If, on the other hand, I’ll tell them a little about what I know about the subject, and suggest they do some research on their own. I emphasize “a little,” because a) I’d rather intrigue them enough to go and take a look on their own, and b) I don’t want to turn them off to the subject by being vehement.

Actually, I liked the “olden days,” where social custom declared the following topics off limits for social situations–sex, politics, and religion. Nowadays, however, people seem to talk of little else!