The scourge of childless, progressive bishops

[C.Ray]

How can someone follow the advice and teaching of childless bishops whose politics may be at odds with one’s own?

I got into an argument (discussion more like it, but I got defensive at points so it felt like an argument) about the folly of submitting to the advice of childless priests and bishops. Her observation was that, not having children or spouses of their own, they are in a very poor position to offer marital or parental counseling, unable to appreciate the gravity of clergy sex abuse, and also because of their celibacy tend towards progressive political stances, which due to their great influence over Catholics, is foolish to support.

To her first point, she related how her friend who got married in the church had to go to extensive counseling with a priest prior to getting married. Her friend had already been cohabitating with her fiance, having sex, and had an alcohol problem to boot. The friend not only lied to the priest, but coerced her family and his into lying on their behalf so they could have the wedding. The “counseling” was a sham process.

To her second point, that celibate bishops have “no skin in the game” and don’t appreciate the gravity of the sex abuse of priests is evidenced by the bishops’ moving abusive priests from one parish to another rather than rooting them out altogether. Had the bishop’s been family men with children of their own, they would not have been so cavalier about the problem.

Her third point was that the bishops tend towards political positions at odds with her own. The Pope has come down against the death penalty and life imprisonment, punishments she herself believes in the justice and practicality of. The USCCB is also pro gun-control and liberal immigration policies, positions she is also against. Churches, in their desire to do well by the poor and homeless, inadvertently contribute to the homelessness problems in our town by providing daily unconditional access to food, camping supplies, and clothing. She admits that charity of itself is good, but draws a distinction between those who try to live by society’s expectations and those who openly disregard it. The abundance in which the charity is distributed is an attractant to the later while the former have recourse to government programs.

These things taken together make the Catholic religion in her opinion a foolish proposition, a badly designed system that erodes social stability.

I had to admit all of her points, though I am undecided on the final diagnosis. I wonder how others here would have responded to them, bearing in mind that she is not a Christian, so simple appeals to authority or scripture would fall on deaf ears.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t have kids, but I was a kid myself, had relatives and friends with kids, and have been around kids. Presumably most bishops had the same experience. You don’t need to have a child to have understanding of children and parenting. Like any subject, some people will be more sensitive and knowledgable about it than others.

I suspect the disconnect is more that the bishops, and everyone else from their generation including parents, had less understanding of child sex abuse in general and couldn’t wrap their minds around it very well, or thought if it did happen it involved dirty old men in a porn theatre and that kids would “forget about it” or “get over it”.

 

[C.Ray]

You don’t need to have a child to have understanding of children and parenting.

Her own experience tells her otherwise. The experience of having children of her own has radically changed her outlook on children, parenting, law, economics… everything.

 

[Allie1]

I dont understand her first point. Yes, the counseling the couple received was a sham process. However, it was the fault of the couple who lied through the counseling process and not the church. If anyone approaches any form counseling with the express intent to lie through the whole thing, then how is that the fault of the counselor and not the fault of the liars? It does turn any counseling relationship into a sham. I just dont understand what her point is.

 

[C.Ray]

I just dont understand what her point is.

Her point was that the priest, who is so distanced from the reality of married life, was either incapable of discerning the deception, or unwilling to call it out, or just didn’t care.

Her question is “how can a celibate person offer reliable counselling to couples?” She thinks that he, having no experience in the matter himself, is unqualified, and that’s how or why the deception was successful.

I didn’t have a response for that. It’s a valid point.

 

[Glennon_P]

Her question is “how can a celibate person offer reliable counselling to couples?” She thinks that he, having no experience in the matter himself, is unqualified, and that’s how or why the deception was successful.

By that logic, only counselors who have suffered from depression can treat persons who have depression. Only counselors who have had a spouse murdered can offer grief counseling to someone whose spouse was murdered…

 

[C.Ray]

By that logic, only counselors who have suffered from depression can treat persons who have depression. Only counselors who have had a spouse murdered can offer grief counseling to someone whose spouse was murdered…

Such counselors might be the best in those situations. Still, a counselor needs to have a certain baseline of understanding. I take your point, but that wouldn’t work on this particular interlocutor… particularly regarding parenting. Ever take parenting advice from a childless person?

 

[Horton]

These things taken together make the Catholic religion in her opinion a foolish proposition, a badly designed system that erodes social stability.

I had to admit all of her points, though I am undecided on the final diagnosis. I wonder how others here would have responded to them, bearing in mind that she is not a Christian, so simple appeals to authority or scripture would fall on deaf ears.

My response would be to tell her to learn the reality of the Catholic Church and then come back for an informed discussion. Or I would ignore her points altogether as it has no validity.

Regarding the ability for a priest to give counsel on marriage she did not take into consideration their extensive comprehensive educational background.

 

[Allie1]

I just dont understand what her point is.

I dont understand how its a valid point. The churches goal is to correct people with irregular living situations and bring them into communion with the church. Ive been in an irregular marriage and when I sought out to correct my situation. I approached the priest and the counseling process with complete and open honesty.

1. I was living with a man and having a sexual relationship with him.
2. I would like to remedy the situation.
3. the priest was kind and understanding and walked me and my spouse through the process of remedying our irregular situation.

How can anyone criticize the priest in your example, if they are approached by liars? You cant crititicize what the priest would have done, could have done, should have done. Because he was not a mind reader and everyone in the example are liars

 

[1ke]

Her observation was that, not having children or spouses of their own, they are in a very poor position to offer marital or parental counseling, unable to appreciate the gravity of clergy sex abuse, and also because of their celibacy tend towards progressive political stances, which due to their great influence over Catholics, is foolish to support.

This is a fallacious argument. Priests are trained in morality and pastoral counseling. Priests are themselves brothers, uncles, sons, and etc. they are perfectly capable of understanding and empathy.

This is analogous to asserting that no man can be an effective OB/GYN nor could a woman who’d never given birth. Ludicrous.

The “counseling” was a sham process.

Well, any counseling or any other endeavor where the person going to counseling (or applying for a job, or selling a product, etc) lies and not only lies but conspires with others to perpetuate a fraud is certainly a sham— but not on the part of the Church, however.

Had the bishop’s been family men with children of their own, they would not have been so cavalier about the problem.

Darn those pesky statistics showing that there are parents and family members that perpetrate abuse on their own children and those of others.

Her third point was that the bishops tend towards political positions at odds with her own.

Which doesn’t make them wrong.

These things taken together make the Catholic religion in her opinion a foolish proposition, a badly designed system that erodes social stability.

She sounds like a sad, sad person.

I had to admit all of her points

Wow. You need to think a lot more critically.

 

[C.Ray]

You cant crititicize what the priest would have done, could have done, should have done. Because he was not a mind reader and everyone in the example are liars

I’m not sure what the point of the “counselling” is then. It’s obviously not a vetting process, if they’ll marry a couple even if the couple is living in sin and also lying about it.

Maybe there’s something else going on there but I have no idea what it is. Why bother with the counselling and just marry anyone who wants it? From her perspective, it just looks like red tape. That’s a different discussion though.

 

[C.Ray]

She sounds like a sad, sad person.

Thanks for the judgement.

 

[C.Ray]

My response would be to tell her to learn the reality of the Catholic Church and then come back for an informed discussion.

I am trying to inform as we go. She isn’t interested enough to go and find out on her own.

Regarding the ability for a priest to give counsel on marriage she did not take into consideration their extensive comprehensive educational background.

I could try that line, but it is ultimately an appeal to an authority for which she has slight regard. “Well they practically have phD’s in psychology”, which would get a hearty chuckle in response.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I am trying to inform as we go. She isn’t interested enough to go and find out on her own.

Then why are you bothering with it? Even if you flawlessly refuted all her ideas, she’s not particularly interested.

 

[C.Ray]

Then why are you bothering with it? Even if you flawlessly refuted all her ideas, she’s not particularly interested.

Occasionally she brings these things up on her own, generally after having read something online or in a magazine. When she does, is it not my duty as a Catholic to defend my faith?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

My own experience and that of many of my peers tells me differently.
There are plenty of teachers, nurses, aunts and uncles, siblings, police officers, child minders, paychologists, counselors etc out there who have an understanding of children even though not parents themselves. I knew some religious sisters in my youth who demonstrated good understanding of kids and teens.

There are also plenty of parents who are completely insensitive to their own kids and everybody else’s.

If this lady is just bent on her own viewpoint only then it’s pointless trying to convince her otherwise.

 

[C.Ray]

If this lady is just bent on her own viewpoint only then it’s pointless trying to convince her otherwise.

That is certainly possible. I only hope otherwise.

 

[ThomasMT]

The experience of having children of her own has radically changed her outlook on children, parenting, law, economics… everything.

Wouldn’t that highlight the quality of priests having an objective outlook?

 

[C.Ray]

Wouldn’t that highlight the quality of priest having an objective outlook?

That’s an interesting point that might get somewhere with her. I’ll put that in my pocket and bring it up the next time it is relevant. Thank you.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You’re correct that often, persons without kids have a more objective outlook. In my experience, objectivity isn’t welcomed by many parents because having children has made their views emotional to the point where they are not capable of objectivity and see no value in it.