Sarah wrote: "The Catholic Church teaches that there is a god, that heaven and hell are real, that individuals can have no direct relationship with god but must commune via a priest, that the pope is infallible, that abortion is a sin, that sex outside marriage is a sin. These beliefs are false in my view, and exceptionally damaging to individuals and to society. So - I can't think any good of it. Are you saying we have to respect something just because lots of people are involved in it? Lots of people love Celine Dion.
You're right that individual Catholic priests and nuns have done good things, but good people do good things regardless of whether their goodness has been institutionalized. The Catholic church is responsible for a lot more evil in the world than good." Sarah, I've always enjoyed your posts, even when I didn't agree with them. Your positions are almost always well thought out and well-articulated. However, some of the conclusions you reach here are vast overgeneralizations, and others are downright false. As such, I just can't let them slide by. The Catholic church is responsible for more evil than good? That conclusion is based on--WHAT, exactly? I am reminded of an interview I saw of the noted British historian Sir Martin Gilbert just last night on C-Span. Gilbert, in speaking of his latest book (which coincidentally, details the actions of ordinary good people, including Catholics, during World War II) stated something to the effect that we always pay more attention to evil than to good. It grabs our attention. We see it before anything else in our field of vision. More bluntly put, shit stinks. Yes, the Catholic Church has been responsible for more than its share of especially pungent shit. There's the Inquisition. There's the Church's controversial action (or, more properly put, inaction) while millions of Jews and others were murdered during the Holocaust. More recently, there are the pedophile priests, and the institutional church's inexcusable coverup of their actions. If there is a God, as Catholics believe there is, and if there is any punishment in the afterlife--self-imposed, or originating elsewhere--then the souls involved in these atrocities should receive theirs, and it should be far more severe than than for any of the "sins" you've listed. If there is indeed a hell, an especially horrific ring of it should be reserved for these faithless ones. But what of all that nameless, faceless good, carried out both by individuals, AND BY THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION? What about the nuns who taught me in high school, who first alerted me to the abuses of farmworkers by the Gallo wine company in California, and who, in a more general sense, heightened a political awareness which has lasted and informed me for the better part of a lifetime? What about the brave Catholic priests and nuns and laypersons who have taught people and healed people and been present for indigent people, like Joni in 1965, when no one else was willing to be, in cities and remote locations to which no one else wanted to go? What about the systematic establishment of health care and education in the United States that Debra mentioned? What about the U.S. bishops' pastoral letter of circa 1983, which spoke passionately in favor of economic justice, and which warned, if memory serves, of the danger of nuclear proliferation? And what of the stance in r! ecent weeks by many identified with the Catholic church against the all-but certain war with Iraq, which will all but certainly take many lives, innocent or not? (You may not agree that church opposition in that last example constitutes a good, but that only serves to illustrate how murky this business of labeling good and evil can sometimes get). And I could go on and on, but you get the idea. You might say, as you implied, that the individuals involved did good almost despite their Catholicism, or at least, incidentally to it. I beg to differ. Some of the actions described above were, indeed, taken by the institutional church. However, of those that weren't, how many individual actors engaged in the good they did, sometimes at great personal risk to themselves, precisely because they believed that acting in that manner was a direct outgrowth of their Catholic faith? Quite a lot, I venture to say. At least, I know quite a lot who fall in that category from my own personal experience. They are anonymous in the eyes of the rest of the world, but their number is vast, and we see them every day. You presented a list of what Catholicism is and isn't, from the vantage point of one who is not a member of that church or, as I understand it, of any church. I would agree with some of your characterizations, vehemently disagree with others, and qualify still more. For example: yes, Catholics believe that there is a God. No, we do not believe that individuals can have no direct relationship with Him/Her, but must "commune" through a priest: the priest can be a mediator, especially through the sacraments, but certainly, isn't necessary for direct communication with the divine. If you believe that that is so, the what do you make of the great Christian/Catholic tradition of prayer through the ages, and even direct mystical union, as exemplified by saints Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Julian of Norwich, not to mention prayer in the lives of millions of ordinary Catholics today? Yes, the Church teaches that certain kinds of papal pronouncements are infallible, ! but that doctrine is of recent origin, and only applies if the pope speaks under carefully delineated circumstances, not to every word that leaves his lips, or even every pronouncement on church doctrine that he makes. Yes, the church teaches that sex outside marriage and abortion are sins. It also teaches that excessive "collateral damage" in war; harsh, inhumane social welfare policies, nuclear proliferation, bone-crushing poverty, and racial discrimination are sins. You may or may not agree with every item on this list. I myself part company from the church on several (notably, the two that you mentioned). However, the common thread that I find running through all, as misguided as some of us believe the thought process behind inclusion of certain items may be, is concern for the dignity of the human person at all stages of life. The church sees itself as protecting human dignity and self-esteem, not taking it away. Does it fall short of the mark sometimes, both in its institutional pronouncements, and its the actions of individuals claiming to act in its name? Absolutely. Does it often actually succeed in protecting human dignity? Just as certainly: yes. In conclusion: is the church, or are those who represent her, perfect? Not by a long shot. So often, "the church" nothing more than a muddle of ordinary, flawed men and women, muddling about, trying to do the best they can in a very imperfect world. And some of the examples of its most grievous failures have been stunning in the lack of compassion, or even, unadulterated evil, involved. For those affected by that lack of compassion and that evil, I hope and pray for healing, and, where appropriate, for justice, including criminal and monetary sanctions. But the heights reached by the church and its followers have also been stunning, in a wholly different way. And in the middle, a lot of faith-filled people, inspired by what they believe, are doing their best to do, and be, good. My two cents (OK, a lot more than that!). Mary P.
