"Why I stay: A Parable from a Progressive Catholic"

[hedgehog]

"When I answer, I insist that the terms be defined properly. It is an error of vocabulary to assume that "the Church" is a direct synonym for "the hierarchy," "the bishops," "the Vatican." Those of us of a certain age remember traveling abroad during the Vietnam years when we would be asked, "How can you still call yourself an American?" Our answer was: we are not the White House. We are not the Pentagon. We are the people protesting; America is larger than your words suggest. Why must I believe that the church is Pope Benedict and not the courageous nuns who took real risks to defy the American bishops on health care in the name of the poor whom they serve? Some say we owe the passage of health care to these brave women; their position would not have been so effective if they had been speaking not as nuns, whose lives had been dedicated to the Church, but, say, as a group of nurses or social workers. The Church has a very long history; this history includes a fair share of scoundrels; it also includes those whose heroism was achieved despite the opposition of the official Church: Joan of Arc and Oscar Romero, to name only two.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-c-gordon/why-i-stay-catholic_b_526812.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. "Why I Never 'Belonged'"

Equal authority.

[zipplewrath]

2. It dates back to their "miracle"

"In 1959 the election of Pope John XXIII was a surprise, a kind of miracle. It happened once. It could happen again. We wait, in stubborn hope, for the return of miracle. We want to make sure some of us are at home when it happens."

The author should check their dates. Some of these scandals date all the way back to the time of her "miracle". The church has been corrupt for centuries. A decade or two of reduced corruption hardly qualifies as a miracle.

[trotsky]

9. Heh.

"A decade or two of reduced corruption" is more like an aberration in the history of that institution.

[YOY]

3. People ask why I as an agnostic former Catholic still does not hate he church for what they have do.

Because If you look at the parts of the sum and not the glaringly worst parts only I still see some good.

Can't hate it. Sure don't love it...but cannot hate it.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Gotta love the double standard

When a religious organization is a positive force it's due to the inherent goodness of the institution. But anything negative associated with it is the result of a few bad actors and not a reflection on the institution itself.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Their god's got the same sweetheart deal.

[AlecBGreen]

57. funny cartoon

but it raises a serious point. Christians are called to find the good in every situation. I dont think thats such a bad thing :) Obviosuly one shouldnt turn a blind eye to that which is bad or evil or corrupt or what needs to be fixed, but in any situation some good can be found. Dont ignore it.

Just my opinion. :hi:

[Gman]

5. Those that bash The Church because of these scandals saying among other things

they will never set foot in a Catholic Church or otherwise bash the Catholic Church because of this refuse to admit or understand that Jesus Himself, who founded this church, would be the most appalled of anyone at what is going on and what has happened. The Catholic Church is an organization of men, with all the failings that that implies. It is no reflection on what Jesus intended his church to be, nor is it a reflection of Jesus Himself which is what this church is supposed to be all about.

[trotsky]

6. Other institutions, and even plenty of individuals not associated with any church...

have displayed enormous heroism over the centuries. And lots of them don't have the baggage of covering up and protecting child rapists.

So the question becomes, why do loyal Catholics think their church deserves special consideration for the good stuff they do, when others are out there doing plenty of good stuff without any affiliation with (or baggage from) the Catholic Church?

[pnwmom]

7. +1000. Thank you, Hedgehog. Why is it that a post like this gets relegated to forums

while most of the Catholic bashing related to the current scandal stays in "general discussion"?

[DesertRat]

12. I was wondering the same thing.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Because the mods hate catholics.

:eyes:

[DeSwiss]

22. Hehehehe....

...you devil!

"Popes, like Republicans, are NEVER guilty of anything. In fact, they’re all as pure as freshly driven snow so anything which paints them in an unfavorable light is merely a lie and an attempt by evil-doers to smear them. Got that? They’re innocent. They’re always innocent." -- Mario Piperni http://mariopiperni.com/religion/can-they-impeach-a-pope.php">Link

[beam me up scottie]

27. I don't understand, you mean Murphy wasn't treated like other serial pedophiles?

Waiting for the other pants, er, I mean shoes to drop, how many other victims are out there?

[DeSwiss]

30. Pants to drop!!!

Bwwwhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

- Hehehehehe.....

[Cleobulus]

8. So when are they going to vote the assholes in the hierarchy out then?

Oh they can't, then never mind then, I guess the people aren't the Church.

I do find it interesting that the poster in question names the Church's heroes as those who defied the Church while they lived, some to the point of excommunication. The fact that their status changed after death isn't the point, the point is that these heroes had to defy the Church in the first place to become heroes or to do the right thing.

[starroute]

10. America is nominally a democracy -- the Catholic Church isn't

The pope appoints the cardinals and the cardinals elect the pope. That makes it a closed system.

I understand the argument that there is more to the Church than the Vatican hierarchy -- but the hierarchy is there to stay. It has the power to make the rules for the entire church -- there's no local control. It can choose to destroy something like liberation theology. And the nuns may have spoken out this time, but the Church has the power to make sure it never happens again.

I've hung in there with the United States because I hopefully have the ability to change things. There is no such ability for Catholics. The only thing that might conceivably make an impact would be if large numbers of Catholics started to leave the Church. But that's an argument for leaving, not for staying.

[darkstar3]

11. So let me see if I have this right:

The people who make the rules in the Catholic Church (like the Pope and the bishops and cardinals) aren't REALLY "the Church", but rather it is the people who break those rules and get excommunicated who are "the Church."

Yeah, that sounds fucking insane...Next you'll be telling me that the government isn't America, but rather it is the militia groups who are REALLY America. That much spin deserves a :crazy:

[pnwmom]

13. No, you don't have it right. ALL the people comprise the body of the Church, including

all the laity and the hierarchy, too. But the people who have proclaimed themselves to be in charge are only a tiny fraction of the whole BODY of the Church.

[darkstar3]

14. They didn't just proclaim themselves to be in charge.

There's a very long process to become a person "in charge" in the Catholic Church. To be "in charge" also means that you have the power to dictate which way "the Church" will swing on certain issues.

Just because the laity grossly outnumbers the leadership doesn't mean that they are somehow more representative of "the Church". In fact, I'm pretty sure representing "the Church" is one of the responsibilities of being a "Church leader."

[pnwmom]

26. Most church going Catholics in normal times, pay very little attention to pronouncements

from the Vatican. The vast majority of Catholics, for example, completely ignore Church policies on birth control. What matters most to most Catholics, besides the Sacraments, is the connection they feel to other people in their local parish, and to their parish priest and and other local church leaders.

Ironically, people who aren't Catholics give much more importance to the hierarchy than members of the laity do.

[darkstar3]

34. Bully for them.

Do you know what they call Catholics who only follow the parts of dogmatic law they like? Cafeteria Catholics.

It's good that you and several others have found a sense of community, but of course you must realize that you can take your community and leave the hierarchical organization that protects pederasts.

[Cleobulus]

35. And this is precisely the problem, they IGNORE the problems with the hierarchy.

When the Catholic Church lies about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread AIDS in Africa, you shrug and say its not your problem, even though you fund it.

When the Catholic Church helps fund efforts to abolish Same Sex Marriage in various states, you simply shrug and say its not your problem, even though you fund that too.

When the Catholic Church operates a hospital whose emergency room refuses to dispense EC for rape victims, you shrug yet again and say its not your problem.

When the Catholic Church covers up for the crimes of thousands of its priests who molested children, over a period of decades, you shrug your shoulders and say its not your problem.

My question is, what do you have a problem with, because its obvious you have no problem with any of these things, since you still support the CHURCH. So really, do you have any moral or ethical compass at all?

[pnwmom]

36. You're wrong. Many of us are active participants in groups of Catholics

working to change the Church from within. We have much more of a chance to effect things from within than without.

[Cleobulus]

37. Really, how? Tell me, what groups do you belong too that are trying to change the Church...

From within. At the same time, tell me how much money you have given to your local parish that was then given to the diocese, Archdiocese and above, and where that money went and what it was used for.

[pnwmom]

38. Ever hear of VOTF? But the answer to the rest of your question is

NOYDB.

[Cleobulus]

39. Really, I would think GLBT people in Maine have a right to know...

so do AIDS victims in Africa, child abuse victims, etc.

Really, your problem is that your Church is getting bad publicity, no more, no less, you don't care about who the Church hurts, you simply want people to stop criticizing it. Isn't that the truth?

ON EDIT: And why aren't you also a member of CTA? Afraid of being excommunicated?

[iris27]

40. When it's working to deny my humanity and bodily integrity, it is

every bit MDB.

[Cleobulus]

42. Its no use, they don't care about you, or me, or anyone else but themselves.

and Holy Mother Church.

[skepticscott]

44. You're deluding yourself

if you really believe that the activities of these groups are anything more than the twitter of little birds to the Catholic hierarchy. You are not "within" and you are not "inside" the Catholic church, and you have no power whatsoever to change church doctrine or policy in any significant way if the people in power don't want it changed. Deep down, you know that, but belonging to these useless little groups lets you justify staying in an organization that you're embarrassed to support, but too weak to leave.

[Cleobulus]

15. What is more important, filling the pews, or staying true to your own beliefs?

That is what it boils down to.

[DeSwiss]

23. IF: "ALL the people comprise the body of the Church...."

...as you say -- then why can't you rid yourselves of your pedophiles?

- Either ALL the people have to POWER to rid yourselves of your pedophiles -- or you don't.

[pnwmom]

24. Do all the people in the US have the power to rid the US of all pedophiles?

Not that I'm aware of.

[trotsky]

25. No, but we have the power to put them on trial and lock them up away from new victims.

Too bad your church didn't do that.

[DeSwiss]

32. That's an absolutely terrible and weak analogy.

But not an unexpected one coming from a religionist-apologist.

What we do have with respect to pedos in secular society (once discovered), is the power and responsibility to try them in a court of civil law (not that fake church law crap). And when they're found guilty -- we lock them up. We don't secretly discover their perfidy, cover it up, and then send these sick bastards off to fresh stalking grounds so that they can continue to do it again and again.


- Not to mention the threatening of their previous victims and families with excommunication from this silly religion, if they don't clam up......

[iris27]

41. Well, we certainly don't give the victims hush money and then dump repeat-offender pedophiles

on indigenous Alaskans in remote villages:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-pedophiles-paradise/Content?oid=1065017

[iris27]

16. In America you have a vote; you can work for the removal of corrupt officials.

Not so in the church. As it is with corporate actions one disagrees with, your only real choice is whether or not you will keep your dollars out of their hands.

I haven't bashed any Catholics as a result of these scandals, which is actually quite a marked contrast to the bashing I did of the Boy Scouts when similar scandals came out in that organization. But the reaction of many DU Catholics really makes me shake my head. I've always believed moderate voices within a community should be the first ones calling out and condemning the extremists and/or corruption within their ranks. Far more of what I see here is bristling defense - "Don't paint the whole church with your broad brush!", etc.

Even if you can't vote bishops out, I would think extreme, vocal, public, sustained disapproval on the part of lay Catholics would have to force a response from the hierarchy.

Instead most Catholics seem to be sitting and waiting for a miracle. That's disappointing, to say the least.

[Cleobulus]

17. I think you bring up an important point, why are they defending the Church while claiming...

to try to better it, when the very action of defending it is perpetuating the evil it practices.

[damntexdem]

18. American Catholics have often not understood how Catholics can be anticlerical.

Catholics in other countries have sometimes learned that through cruel experience.

I've talked to Catholics in Mexico who understood the distinction perfectly.

[DeSwiss]

21. {Snickers}

Well, here is my post in answer to that ridiculous apologia posted at HuffPo:

You stay because that's what cult brainwashing does to a person. You don't have the will, nor the information to combat those messages coming from your brain (REASON) which tells you that it's all BS. The Church brainwashes you when you're a child so that it is almost impossible for you to let go as an adult. Not without letting your childhood memories go as well, which it has become almost hopelessly entangled. The Christian story is nothing more than a syncretistic version of many others. Others which are much, much older than it is. It's a story about worshiping the SUN. And it always has been. And that halo that you always see in paintings behind Jesus' head -- is the SUN we've been worshiping all along.

http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft

[gcomeau]

28. The article argues against its own premise.

How do some of us stay in the Church? In grief, in sadness, with a resolve not to be shut out by those who say they are speaking in the name of the Father. We just don't believe them. The Church is not an institution; it is the people

As I said in the comments there, if the church is really "the people" and not the Pope and the bishops and the buildings, then the people can damn well leave the Pope and the Bishops and the buildings behind and worship how they see fit somewhere else and they will still be "the church".

There is zero need for the people to continue associating themselves with the Vatican hierarchy to "reclaim" the church if the people ARE the church. if you accept the assertion that the church is the people, the rest of the article's argument for why to stay in the Catholic organization is bullshit.

[trotsky]

29. There are so many ways in which that parable is flawed...

it's hard to know where to start.

But I'd say the most glaring problem is not that the "good Catholics" are like the rest of the family sent to live in a cold section of the house - the "good Catholics" are the ones who pay the heating bill, maintain the furnace, pay the electric bill, change the light bulbs, pay for the garbage collection, the security system, and everything else. The uncles themselves bring in no money. As such, the rest of the family wields the ultimate power: if they'd just stop paying the bills and doing all the work on the estate, the uncles would be brought to their knees. But they don't. They happily keep slaving away, supporting the uncles, and hoping for some day that one of the uncles dies and they vote to make one of the young, progressive cousins the leader of the house. Because well, the little cold corner of the basement that they live in is so pretty with all the work they've done on it, you know. And when the uncles drop a few food scraps from their gold-plated dining table, some of the rest of the family is able to sneak it away and feed it to poor people who stop by the dilapidated shed in the backyard. For this, the rest of the family doesn't want to seriously challenge those rotten old uncles. Who, from time to time, decide to bring a nice young boy around to fuck in the ass. And when the police come by asking about it, they deny it happened and just move the uncle to another fancy room - and bring him another nice young boy. (Oh and did I mention the rest of the family is answering the door, and leading the little boy upstairs, absolutely sure that this time it won't happen?)

Yeah, there's a better analogy.

[beam me up scottie]

31. The Vatican is their Safe House, whenever a pedophile is publicly accused, they go to the mattresses

Keeps it all in the family.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Those who give the Catholic Church money are supporting bigotry and child rape.

If you give the Catholic Church money you are supporting "the hierarchy," "the bishops," and "the Vatican."

[DeSwiss]

43. Absolutely. n/t

[Jim__]

45. I agree with her reasoning.

If you believe that an organization is essentially good and transcends a subset of bad members, then it is a valid choice to stay and fight to save the organization.

[skepticscott]

46. As I posted above

The people who use this as an excuse are just deluding themselves. Church policy and doctrine will not change in any meaningful way because of "pressure" from lay members. These people are not "inside" the Catholic church in any way that matters. When the cardinals go into the Sistine Chapel to perpetuate church corruption in the next pope, that's "inside". These cute little lay protest groups are not even on the radar as far as Rome is concerned.

[Jim__]

47. Clearly, this woman who is a member of the church, ...

... and, based on her column, has spent a lot of time contemplating the church and the role of the laity within it, disagrees with you.

[skepticscott]

50. And can you cite any significant change

that lay Catholic groups have brought about as justification for her disagreement? Any substantial changes in church policy or doctrine that have resulted from pressure by the laity, against the wishes of the church hierarchy? If not, then I'd say that things are exactly as I claimed above...both you and she know full well that such changes will never take place because of anything these groups do or say, and that the whole "trying to change the church from within" meme is just a lame rationalization for someone staying with the church because they're too weak to leave.

[Jim__]

54. If you read the parable she cites, she's not trying to bring about significant doctrinal change.

She feels the church is important as the church and needs to kept around for that reason. As to policy changes, my bet is that the church will not continue to hide pedophile priests (if that was ever official policy).

[iris27]

55. Considering that pedophilic priests have been victimizing kids for at least the last 40 years,

and that the public has known about it for about 10 years with no change in the church's actions during that time, your bet seems a very strange one to make. The church still continues to work to keep these cases from going to trial, and in 2007, Benedict specifically asked President Bush for personal immunity in the event that any of these cases DID make it to trial in the US (and he received it).

And if the author's NOT trying to bring about doctrinal change, at least in the areas of sexual morality and gender equality, then she continues to support doctrine that has:

- worsened the AIDS crisis in Africa by discouraging condom use there

- allowed the severe illness and deaths of pregnant women in countries where abortion is illegal
(and in Catholic hospitals in countries where it IS legal)

- influenced the development of major federal legislation (including health care reform) to the detriment of American women

- influenced elections when one bishop or another decides to publicly announce that they are barring a Catholic Democrat from communion because he or she votes differently than Catholic dogma would require

- let assholes like Bill Donohue feel justified in saying insipid shit like, "there’s a connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse of minors."

[Jim__]

56. You say there has been no change in the church's actions in the last 40 years.

Can you cite a case of the church trying to cover up an act of pedophilia within the last 5 years? Not trying to fight a particular case in court, but actively trying to cover-up a case of priestly pedophilia. If not, what is the basis of your claim?

As to your claim of this woman supporting doctrines, read her parable. The parable is about supporting an institution that she sees value in, in spite of the people in charge. Reading her parable, where do you find the basis for saying that she supports these doctrines?

[iris27]

58. Sorry, actually, the last 60 years, looking closer at the dates

of the earliest cases I've read about. And probably earlier.

Do you understand how a cover-up is supposed to work? If a crime was covered up, then revealed and reported to national media inside of 5 years, that would be some astonishingly terrible execution on the part of those who orchestrated the cover-up.

Moreover, do you understand the shame that sexual abuse brings to the victims? It's rare that the victim has even broken their initial silence within 5 years, unless the abuse was stumbled upon by someone else.

No, I don't have a case of the church trying to cover up an act of pedophilia within the last 5 years.

However, if the church were making some sort of about-face in the way it deals with men like these, it would be excommunicating known offenders instead of paying out settlements for them, keeping them in the church, and even continuing to move them about to new dioceses (fresh pastures!). That is the basis of my claim.

If a priest was caught abusing a child this very day, do you honestly think they would defrock him, excommunicate him, and let him face criminal trial, while at the same time paying settlements for, and retaining in the church, men who did the same thing 20 years earlier?

From the article I linked above (post #41), in 2009, the church still cares for a priest known to have raped at least two girls in the 1970's, given one gonorrhea, gotten her pregnant, and told her to tell doctors that she'd been raped by her father. (!!!) Their answer for why they haven't kicked him out? "Jim Poole is elderly. He lives in a Jesuit community under an approved safety plan that includes 24-hour supervision." He had continued to work as a hospital chaplain until 2003, when an abuse suit was threatened and he retired.

Also from the article, in 2007, "the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay $660 million to more than 500 victims of clerical sex abuse." The timeframe of abuse for each of these 500+ victims is not specified. In 2003, two years outside your timeframe, the Archdiocese of Boston paid out $85 million to another 552 victims.

As for the parable and whether or not Mary Gordon is supporting doctrine, it does not matter whether she ideologically agrees with any of it. By remaining within the church and supporting it financially, she is supporting -- as in assisting, propping up -- those doctrines. By not fighting to change them, she is supporting them.

And honestly, her parable doesn't make the slightest sense to me. It reads as though she likes the church's wealth and influence and knows that collusion is the only way to access it. That very obviously isn't the point she was trying to make, so I'm left confused. Trotsky's reworking of the parable in #29 seems at lot more accurate.

She complains that the uncles "control the money", and they do, but not until after it hits the collection plate. A closer description would be if those marginal people kept putting some of their hard-earned money into the family's collective checking account every month, and then the uncles had total say over how funds from that account were spent. Well...no one's twisting her arm to make her give the uncles any money! Their power would dry up real quick without the cash to back it up.

No Catholic likes to think that their tithe went to pay some child molester's hush money; but look at the huge numbers above....that's obviously where quite a few of those tithes have gone.

[skepticscott]

59. Well, here's someone else

who did what he did for the "the good of the universal church". Of course, he was the guy who became pope, and what he did was to protect child rapists from exposure and punishment.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100409/D9EVNFUG1.html

So tell me again why protecting and preserving the church at any cost is the greater good...

[beam me up scottie]

48. The Church has enjoyed persecuting, torturing and murdering its way through two centuries.

They have not been held accountable and have learned nothing.

They continue to oppress women and glbt people and are responsible for the deaths of millions in third world countries who have been or will be infected with AIDS.

It is EVIL to allow people to sicken and die while lying about and withholding information and medical care that can save them.

It is MURDER.



Oh, yeah, sign me up. :eyes:

[skepticscott]

51. You're far too generous

The last two centuries doesn't even begin to encompass all of the Catholic church's sins...

[beam me up scottie]

52. D'oh! I meant to post 'millenia'.

Trying to have too many conversations at once :banghead:

[skepticscott]

53. Figured that's what you meant

Not like you to let 1800 years of egregious misdeeds go unackowledged...

[iris27]

49. Valid choice? Sure. Smart choice? Highly debatable.

Ask the Log Cabin Republicans how well they're doing with that, despite ostensibly having more power (through primary votes, etc.) to change their organization than Catholics have.

And in the meantime, both groups are helping to fund and promote those whose actions they claim to disagree with so strongly.

Hell, if lay Catholics spent as much time fighting the hierarchy as they're spending to defend the general reputation of the church, maybe we WOULD see some change. If Catholics were the loudest and most prominent voices of outrage here, I don't think the Benedict could have been nearly so dismissive as he has been.

But they're not. Why is that?

[Feron]

60. The scandal is why I left the Church for good.

I could not in good conscience be a part of an organization ,even nominally, that systematically protected sexual predators.

A bad priest or two is one thing, but the Vatican covering up sexual abuse for decades, threatening survivors with damnation if they tell, and moving predatory priests around is another. The Vatican's only concern is holding on to power and money.

The stories of the abuses coming out are dismissed by the pontiff as "petty gossip". The Pope blames gays, the sexual revolution, the media, anything rather than admit wrongdoing. Every week it seems that a new document surfaces in which the Vatican kept on or covered up a predator in their midst. The Vatican considers itself to be a victim, not the survivors of abuse.

Catholics that think that they can change the Church from the inside are fooling themselves. The Church doesn't care about you. They say that in their words and actions.

If you want change, then you'll get it only in another domination.

When you're in the Church, you're in an abusive relationship:

They care more about condom usage than they do African people.

They care more about protecting the Church than protecting children against predators.

They care more about ending contraception and abortion than they do about the quality of life for women and their children.

I don't know how much more clear it can be that they don't care about the laity. And that includes you.

As the saying goes, the fish rots from the head. If the Church government is evil and corrupt, then that infects the entire church. The only way to change an organization like the Church is from the top and that's not going to happen.

If an organized crime syndicate runs a charity, that doesn't mean that the crime syndicate is good.

You're making excuses for an organization that officially aided sexual predators for decades. In essence you are defending people who are accessories to molestation and rape. And since there is no real interest in ousting the Church officials involved, that makes the whole Church rotten.

There are Catholics that have been so utterly brainwashed, I don't think that there is any depravity too great for them to leave. And that is extremely sad.

[edhopper]

61. A better parable would be

asking a moderate, pro choice Republican "Why are you still in the GOP?"