In the Intelligence Squared debate on the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world” Stephen Fry asks this very pointed question: If the church in the past cannot be blamed for getting it wrong, and acting in ways now considered gravely immoral, then what is the church for? The first of five parts is accessible here. Here is a little excerpt of the question and answer context in which Stephen Fry asks the question:
I have been trying over the last two or three days to frame a response to the ongoing crisis in Ireland over the abuse of children by Catholic clergy, and the continuing refusal of the church to report such abuse to the authorities. Instead of doing what the law requires, Irish church authorities, as recently as three or four years ago, at the direct instigation of the Vatican, have continued to cover up cases of abuse. In one case, according to the Cloyne report, one priest, known to be an offender, officiated at the wedding of one of his victims! The scale of the continuing abuse simply beggars belief, but the role of the church in covering up that abuse is still an outstanding issue that should be of concern to everyone, and not only to the Irish, for the scope of the abuse by priests and religious in many other countries is simply unknown, and if the Vatican can cover up its crimes in a country that has so recently carried out large public enquiries, and put in place laws whose purpose is to protect children from religious predators, there is simply no reason to believe that it is not taking place elsewhere, especially in places where the church is highly respected and obeyed.
Then why am I having problems with my response? When words come easily, why are these words so recalcitrant and hard to come by; why are my fingers not flying over the keyboard in justified outrage and concern? Well, here is my problem. The Irish Prime Minister, or Taoiseach, Enda Kelly, introduced, on Wednesday, 20th July 2011, to the Irish Parliament (Dáil Éireann), a motion which, amongst other things,
— expresses its dismay at the disturbing findings of the report and at the inadequate and inappropriate response, particularly of the Church authorities in Cloyne, to complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse; [and]
— deplores the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection frameworks and guidelines of the Irish State and the Irish bishops.
This refusal to express appropriate outrage is reflected in the Taoiseach’s speech in support of the motion:
It is fair to say that after the Ryan and Murphy reports, Ireland is, perhaps, unshockable when it comes to the abuse of children. However, the Cloyne report has proved to be of a different order because for the first time in this country a report on child sexual abuse exposes an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago. In doing so the report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection and elitism that dominates the culture of the Vatican to this day. The rape and torture of children were down-played or managed to uphold the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and reputation. Far from listening to evidence of humiliation and betrayal with St. Benedict’s “ear of the heart”, the Vatican’s reaction was to parse and analyse it with the gimlet eye of a Canon lawyer. This calculated, withering position is the polar opposite of the radicalism, humility and compassion on which the Roman Church was founded. Such radicalism, humility and compassion comprise the essence of its foundation and purpose. This behaviour is a case of Roma locuta est: causa finita est, except in this instance nothing could be further from the truth.
If he really thinks that “Rome has spoken; the matter is closed” could not be further from the truth, he needs much stronger words than these; for it is sheer sycophancy to suggest that the actions of the church officials are in conflict with the founding values of the church. And so, my problem is simply that only a radical resolution to the problem of the Roman Catholic Church is reasonable, and that sounds unreasonable, and perhaps even anti-Catholic. I think that the only reasonable response to the Roman Catholic Church is a quite radical rejection, not only of its religious and moral arrogance and presumption, but of its standing in the community of nations. And this must start with a fairly radical reassessment of Christianity as it is usually understood, as a religion of love and compassion.
In the first place, whereas some of Jesus’ words can be taken to show concern for the poor and the outcast, it is significant that, if we take the Jewish-Christian tradition as a unity, as Christians do, it is only with Jesus that the threat of hellfire enters the religious story. While there are words of compassion in the preaching of the Jesus portrayed in the gospels, there are many less lovely things, such as the threat of hell, an absurdly distorted view of sexuality, xenophobia, gender discrimination, self-centred concern for loyalty and obedience from his followers, including, if need be, hatred of family for his sake, and an improvident carelessness about the future while Jesus and his followers lived off the wealth of widows. It simply will not do to say that the church was founded on radicalism, humility and compassion. While Paul speaks eloquently of love, and the epistles of John remark that God is love, and that those who abide in love abide in God and God in them, there are also curt condemnations of heretics and those who think for themselves, and an absurd conviction that the day of the Lord is at hand, thus confining concern for the future to watching and waiting for the Lord to come, and pooling resources until that glorious day arrives, and the acceptance of the world and all its evils as in some sense the gift of God as punishment for those who do not believe, and as a sharing in Christ’s sufferings for those who do. It simply will not do to continue to suppose that the church is founded on the values of humility and compassion. Nor will it do to suggest that with Christianity something genuinely new and transformative (the radicalism mentioned in Kelly’s speech) entered the world. The history of the church simply will not bear out this claim.
Nor can the pope’s claim to sole dominion over the church be accepted by any thoughtful person. It was only gradually, and mainly as a result of the primacy of Rome in the Empire, that the bishop of Rome came to assume plenary authority over the church, an authority which has never been granted by all Christians. The claim to primacy is historically absurd and politically dangerous, and the assumption that the Vatican constitutes a state gives the pope and his minions excessive power to influence public life in countries where the church is active. China alone, it seems, refuses to accept that the pope’s writ extends even to the issue of the investiture of bishops and other church leaders of the Catholic Church in China, and they are right to do so. The investiture controversy was the primary reason for the cession of the Church of England from the Church of Rome, and, as popes begin once again to wield — or at least attempt to wield — this historic power in other nations, which, in effect, to the extent that they are successful, means that those nations cede to Rome not only influence but a large measure of control over the internal affairs of their countries, it is time for nations to wake up to the dangers that this power, unchecked, impends, especially on democratic polities. It simply will not do to suppose, as Enda Kelly does, that this power is, in essence, defined by humility or compassion, or will be exercised with due consideration for the rights of others. This is an unreasonable expectation. It has never been fulfilled.
There may seem to have been a sea change in the relationship between the government of Ireland and the Holy See, but I do not think this is true. To deplore something is not to condemn it, nor is it to understand what is being deplored. The acts are deplored; the source of the problem remains unexamined. It lies in the unaccountable power of the Vatican. It will take much more outrage than this to make a real change. So long as the Vatican is permitted to act on the international stage as an independent and sovereign state, and popes are granted powers and standing that they cannot rightly claim, the kinds of offences that are happening in Ireland are doubtless happening elsewhere too. The Vatican is a menace to the decency and good order of the world. Its continuing position regarding women is a danger to all of us, since, by refusing women the right to control their own reproductivity, the Vatican is perpetuating a world population growth which the world cannot only not sustain, but that is causing increasing environmental problems, as ecosystems are destroyed, not only by greedy corporations, but by incresing numbers of mouths to feed and lives to save. At the same time the church is the direct cause of manifold suffering for untold numbers of children and their parents precisely because the world cannot sustain its present population, let alone populations which are increasing daily.
The Vatican is a danger to democratic polity, for its political influence, which is exercised with deliberation at the behest of the pope, is everywhere a direct intrusion in the affairs of free and democratic nations. The fact that most nations accept diplomatic representation from the Vatican means that Roman Catholic concerns are kept close to the centre of power. It would be naive to imagine that this does not have an immediate effect on decisions that are made by governments, especially in those countries where many are faithful and devout catholics. When Ireland expels the papal nuncio, and refuses to accept a replacement, then the outrage at the actions of the church in Ireland will be sufficient and effective. Other nations should heed what is happening in Ireland, and learn from it. Popes are not to be trusted, and religions do poison everything.
This post leads me to tell you about my latest email from Father Pavone (Priests for Life) with the subject line “Friend of Life, do you remember Blessed John Paul’s dire warning?” John Paul’s warning, the email tells me, is
“You must feel the full urgency of the task.
Woe to you if you do not succeed in defending life.”
- Blessed Pope John Paul II, 1993, Homily at World Youth Day Mass
The email also draws my attention to the words in Humanae Vitae:
“Human dignity shall be inviolable.
Every human being shall have the right to life and human dignity;
embryonic and fetal life shall be subject to
protection from the moment of conception.”
These two passages support my conviction that the the RCC is the most hypocritical organization in the world. This email, along with many others from Pavone, is not about “human dignity”; it is an email to solicit money to help Pavone and the RCC prevent women from having control over their own bodies and to prevent the Catholic faithful from having control over their own minds:
“I’ve sent you this urgent email because Gospel of Life Ministries needs your immediate financial help so that we can carry out the mandate which the Church has given us. . . .“
Along with the sexual abuse of children, the RCC is also guilty of abusing and perverting its members right to use their minds in a rational manner.
Even if I accepted the existence of god(s) I could no longer identify as RCC. As an agnostic, I used to enjoy the display and routine of Mass but can longer tolerate secular weddings performed in the church. The villainy of the church along with their insistence that the church matters more than any mere mortals should be unacceptable to anyone that views life as more than a prerequisite to the after-life.
“The acts are deplored; the source of the problem remains unexamined. It lies in the unaccountable power of the Vatican.”
Which mirrors the unaccountable power of “God,” which is the very thing that makes theism so dangerous.
I’m with you except for this bit, where I don’t understand what you’re getting at:China alone, it seems, refuses to accept that the pope’s writ extends even to the issue of the investiture of bishops and other church leaders of the Catholic Church in China, and they are right to do so.
If the RCC is considered a private club or corporation, then surely they can appoint whatever officers they want, even internationally, and any host country which considers itself a free and open society should simply ignore it. The problem (ie. w.r.t. this issue — ignoring all the other problems for the moment) with the RCC is that it won’t acquiesce to be only a private club; it also makes this ridiculous claim of quasi-statehood and attempts to wield influence over more than its own (putatively voluntary) membership.
But even if we grant that local governments should look at the RCC with a jaundiced eye, I have a hard time casting China as some sort of hero standing up for secular values: their refusal is just a case of one authoritarian power resisting territorial intrusion by another authoritarian power. A pox on both their houses.
Ah, I don’t think China is a hero standing up for secular values nor, of course, would I suggest such a thing. Of course, it is not. But China is quite aware that the Vatican, through its right of investiture, its right to appoint to offices of the church in every nation, without consultation, wields enormous power. The Church is not a private club or corporation. It acts like a sovereign state, and, as a sovereign state, plays a central role in the life of nations. This interference is one that China does not allow, and it is right not to allow it.
As I say, this does not make it a hero, just realistic. The use of unaccountable power is a danger to us all, and it should not be given air to breathe, as still is the case in too many nations. Of course, China reserves power to itself for its own reasons, which are not democratic, but democratic nations should not be blind to the power that the Church wields by exercising the power to appoint men to bishoprics and other high office without any let or hindrance.
OK, we’re clear on the Chinese aspect, but: are you suggesting that Canada should exercise a veto over the appointment of Catholic bishops and archbishops in this country? It seems to me you’re going at this backwards: I don’t want the church interfering in state affairs or vice versa. Or are you saying that, as long as the Church claims quasi-state status, church officials above a certain level should be deemed to have quasi-diplomatic status, and the host country can therefore veto candidates for the office? (a power which AFAIK is available in international law but rarely used)
As a strategy, I kind of like it. It effectively gives the Vatican an ultimatum: be a church, just like the Anglicans, Baptists, Uniteds etc, with all the privileges (still too much, but that’s a larger fight) and limitations thereof; or be a state, and therefore be treated as a potentially subversive foreign power.
Eamon Knight
My answer to your question to Eric, “are you suggesting that Canada should exercise a veto over the appointment of Catholic bishops and archbishops in this country?” is the federal and provincial governments should more strongly voice their concern about the RCC’s influence in this country, strongly condemn the clergy’s abuse of children and abolish the separate but publicly funded Catholic schools in Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.
Clearly, I’m not sure what I am saying, though I think your second paragraph captures it. Either the Roman Catholic Church is a church or it is a foreign power. It can’t be both. The consequence of its playing both roles is destructive of democratic institutions, in my view, and should be brought to an end.
The Irish are experiencing just what it is like to have a foreign power acting directly in ways that affect and subvert Irish law. It has been doing this all along, and no one seems to have noticed, but it is important, I believe, for the health of democratic systems to make sure that the role of the church is clearly defined, so that it cannot undermine the efforts of people to govern themselves.
I think of this in relation to the whole issue of reproductive rights and the right to assisted dying. The Vatican, through the appointment of bishops and other officials has an immediate effect on the social conversation and consensus. There is no reason why this should not be a concern of all of us, since it is a direct intrusion into the political process, even though it comes in, as it were, under the radar.
In relation to this is the point emphasised by Ophelia, when she speaks of the Vatican’s unaccountable power as mirroring the unacountable power of “God.” The point is that these people claim to speak authoritatively, with an authority greater than any other person in Canada (to limit ourselves for the moment) can muster; and yet there is no way that they can demonstrate that they have such authority. It is sheer arrogance and presumption. Yet the effect of this power, expressed through diplomatic representatives and direct appointment to high office in the Canadian church, is such as to undermine the freedom of Canadians to shape their lives in ways consistent with their values and ideals, after reasonable consideration. We should be offended by such effrontery and do what we can to bring it to an end.
I might add that there is no reason that the limits of the Vatican’s authority over Canadian religious institutions cannot be dictated by statute, and the power of popes to make decisions for Canadians limited accordingly. Indeed, it seems to me, in the light of the Irish experience, that this is something that is demanded for the welfare of Canadians.
Clearly, I’m not sure what I am saying,
Oh good, I’m not just being thick today
. And I agree whole-heartedly with everything in your reply (and Veronica’s).
So, what else is new–is anyone surprised about the ongoing child abuse and coverup in the Catholic church? I recently watched a video on an atheist website detailing priestly abuse of children happening now in Africa. And, for fun, please watch Louis CK’s video “Louis CK learns about the Catholic church.” I first saw it on PZ’s website, and I loved it, but for some reason I’ve never met anyone else who liked it, not even my Catholic girlfriend.
Not to diminish the high crimes of the RCC but please examine the Jehovah’s Witnesses who go door to door and come on our property.
Jehovah’s Witnesses pedophiles.
Many court documents and news events prove that Jehovah’s Witnesses require two witnesses when a child comes forward with allegations of molestation within the congregation. Such allegations have customarily been treated as sins instead of crimes and are only reported to authorities when it is required to do so by law, (which varies by state). It has also been shown that child molesters within the organization usually have not been identified to the congregation members or the public at large.
These people engage in a door to door ministry, possibly exposing children to pedophiles.
Although the Watchtower Bible Tract Society claims that known pedophiles are accompanied by a non-pedophile in such work, there is no law stating that such a practice must be followed.
The Watchtower corporation has paid out millions in settlement money already.
–
Danny Haszard abuse victim
dannyhaszard(dot)com
Details of the RCC continuing efforts to deny accountability:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/priests-abuse-catholic-legal-plea
One of the factors in my gradual shift from Christianity to atheism was the repellent behaviour and attitudes of fellow christians. The RCC merely strengthens my repugnance.
The Church claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Christians claim that they have been enjoined by Jesus to “love one another, as I have loved you” (teaching, healing, self-sacrifice and all that). So where is it? Where is the love, where the spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit that transforms believers’ lives and guides their thoughts and hearts? The fact that church authorities are no more proof against the common “devices and desires of our own hearts” than anyone else rather suggests that the influence of the Holy Spirit is effectively if not actually nonexistent. Why are the clergy not the living proof of all that they claim to represent?
It is not good enough to say that everyone is liable to sin, even clergymen. If they are not noticeably transformed by their faith what is the value of anything they say? Whereas one might accept that the odd sin gets committed from time to time, the sheer scale of abuse now being revealed, and the dishonesty of the Vatican itself, argues against the possibility of any holiness whatsoever. Taking into account the past record of the Church in every period of its history, this isn’t really very surprising, is it?
In Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus shows how to recognise the false prophets (the ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing): “by their fruits ye shall know them”. That rather indicates that whether inside or outside the Church, what we do matters. It isn’t enough merely to have faith.
The same passage also gives us this: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” This is completely uncompromising. As far as I can see, the entire Church is condemned by its own god.
Just posted on WEIT, from a book review by the Catholic, Gary Wills:
Some are surprised that religion is so corruptible. They should not be. When secrecy is used to protect a higher order of knowledge, it can make the keepers of the secrets think of themselves as a higher order of humans. Corruptio optimi pessima, goes the old saying. Blight at the top is the deepest blight. It is the sin of taking God’s name in vain.
So if by “Church” we mean simply all those who believe in a god of real healing and genuine love for one’s neighbour and actually try in their own lives to get it right, the sooner they get rid of the hierarchy the better. I suppose it’s unlikely, though. Ecclesiastical hierarchy has been criticised by its own adherents since its founding, but they obviously have a need to keep it going. Also, I think that Wills is wrong: we should be surprised that religion is so corruptible, if its claims are true.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/two-new-books-on-religion-and-money/
Garry Wills, begging his pardon.
I’m really sorry, Danny.
And to think they always dress so nicely in their suits! Whom can one trust? So the fucking JWs are no better than the fucking RCC. And the trouble is that “fucking” is no mere expletive.
The reason why children are exposed to abuse by religious teachers and propagandists and exemplars is that innocent people simply suppose that, because these preachers are ministers of the gospel of god, the grace of god is with them, and so they are implicitly trustworthy. And that’s why people continue to support the Church, whatever the shortcomings of its ministers. It must surely be the most successful scam, the most brilliant form of brain-washing, of all time.
Hi, Danny, thanks for adding your story. I had no idea, and telling us about it certainly does nothing to diminish the high crimes of the RCC. Indeed, as Gordon Willis points out, it simply adds to the horror.
I had no idea that the JWs were involved in this sort of thing, though I am not surprised. Any organisation which pretends to virtue, has a kind of systemic secrecy, and is highly respected — as most religious institutions are — even marginal ones — is bound to attract predators who can use the organisation for cover.
JWs are not in general respected as believers, because their views, even by Christian standards, seem a bit wacky, but they are still given the reflex respect that is customarily accorded to religious institutions in our society.
What I find mind boggling is the JW claim ” known pedophiles are accompanied by a non-pedophile in such work”! Known pedophiles should be reported and prosecuted, not supervised! There seems to be a widespread fiction at work here that religion itself is a force for good, and it is more important to keep offenders’ identities secret because it gives them a chance to repent and be saved (or some such thing). The institution is protected because it is “of God”, so covering up offences and protecting the work of the institution go hand in hand with this conviction. Any claim to represent God is, as Gordon says, a scam, but a very successful one, and particularly harmful.
I don’t know what it’s like to be sexually abused, but it must be a terrible burden to bear; and being abused by religious leaders must be even more difficult to bear for many, since one’s deepest beliefs and ideals are involved. I hope you have got the help that you need.
Euthanasia or choice of dying, what’s your opinion on this subject ?
I believe it is our own right to decide when to end our existence, my problem consist in deciding when this is reasonable or dictated by a depression or compelling situations.
There are several instances when a person wishes to die because the life is already ending and he/she wishes to terminate it with dignity, other occasions the will to die may be generated by economic condition , namely, you don’t wish to put your family in debts or ,some one of the family is pushing you to do it in order to avoid a financial burden.
I know that I touched the two extremes but there must be some balanced way to respect the person ‘s will without overdoing it.
I just read an article about euthanasia in Belgium or Holland, I don’t recall exactly where euthanasia is legally practiced and it appears that in doing it there is a lots of arbitrary decisions taken by doctors and even nurses; however, that doesn’t mean because of malpractice you have to deny one’s the right to decide for its own life.
One other issue strongly against it , at least here in Canada, is a group of people with disability, I had the perception that they are afraid if this will become law, they are at risk for abuses.
I am really interested in your opinion under the atheistic aspect and human too.
Galli