James Carroll, writer and former Catholic priest, put the Church's recent scandals into context, offering an interpretation that is both critical and optimistic.
He began by arguing that the Church is now under the control of a particular kind of fundamentalism;
We're familiar with Protestant fundamentalism, but there's a Catholic fundamentalism. Only instead of treating the verses of the Bible literally, Catholic fundamentalism has a disproportionate regard for the statements of the Pope. And what we have here [in the abuse scandals] is a revelation of the limits . . . and even of the corruptions of Pope-centered Catholicism.
This emphasis on clerical power and the power of the papacy is not an old tradition, but a relatively new innovation:
You have to go back to the nineteenth century when this obsession with Papal power began to take hold in the Catholic Church. It was when the Pope lost his temporal power over the Papal States in the middle of Italy in 1870, that the bishops rallied around the Pope and gave him ultimate spiritual power. It was only then, for example, in that Council, Vatican I, [that] the infallibility of the Pope was declared to be a doctrine of the Church. Many Catholics think that's an ancient tradition. It is not. It's a modern tradition. . . . That system was a corruption of the Christian tradition.
Carroll notes that Vatican II had been a conscious move back to the older tradition:
Vatican II . . . was a step toward the democratizing of the Church. A collegiality among bishops, with the Pope understood to be the first among equals, but emphasize equals. [It was] an affirmation of the tradition of the priesthood of all believers, to put the power of the Church back where it belongs among laity, priests, and nuns, sharing with bishops in the leadership of the church.
Now the Church is led by people who have worked vigorously against Vatican II, including the Pope himself:
Cardinal Ratzinger was the chief of the people trying to roll back the changes of Vatican II. You could call him the Catholic "fundamentalist in chief," and now he's the Pope.
The emphasis on the power of bishops directly relates to the Church's current scandals:
What this all boils down to is that whenever a bishop was confronted with the choice between defending an abused child or protecting the abusive priest, the bishops inevitably chose to protect the priest--not because they approved his behavior or were indifferent to it, but because that was the way to protect this system of power.
Carroll sees that power structure cracking, even as the former Soviet Union cracked. For example, nuns broke with bishops during the debate over health care.
The nuns broke ranks with the bishops, but the nuns were acting as if the reforms of Vatican II were real. And that's what has to happen more now. Priests and lay people have to break ranks with this corrupt clerical system, also. . . . The Catholic Church has to be rescued from Catholic Fundamentalism.
Carroll disagrees with the claims that the clerical scandals will destroy the Church:
It's not the Catholic Church that's being destroyed here. It's the Catholic fundamentalist clerical culture, which has betrayed the Church in a very basic way. It's being exposed for what it is.
Cardinal Ratzinger can rebuke the predatory priests with great fury . . . but he cannot chastise the enabler bishops, because he is one of them.
The problem cannot be solved merely with the Pope stepping down:
Any bishop who would be a candidate to replace him as Pope would be equally involved with this broad tradition of clerical power protecting itself at the expense of the Catholic people, especially their children. What we need is a profound structural reformation.
A fundamental structure change is necessary:
The Church needs to change. It needs to be more democratic. It needs to be more respectful of lay people. Above all, it needs to be more respectful of women. . . . [These changes] frankly are already underway . . . It's the bishops who are lagging behind.
The church has a tradition of being responsive . . .. I predict there will be another general council of the Church. I predict it will include not just bishops, but priests and lay people. And it will address the basic structural questions that it began to take up with Vatican II--democracy; accountability; checks and balances; a power that is accountable to the people. The Catholic Church is not going to survive as the only human institution on the Earth immune from the revolutions of democracy and feminism [and] the cry for social justice within the Church. It's simply unstoppable.
Listen to the full interview to hear Carroll's full interpretation, a call for a "Catholic Mikhail Gorbachev," and his optimism for a renewed Church.
"Background Briefing with Ian Masters" airs on the www.kpfk.org Monday-Thursday from 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, Sundays 11-Noon, and any time on the archives page
Mary C. Gordon: Why I Stay: A Parable From A Progressive Catholic
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. The Church is not an institution; it is the people.
Sander Hicks: The Devil In The Vatican
If you claim the authority of God, but don't do what God would do, then what do you turn into? You are like a dog asleep in a manger, not eating the food of life, and blocking others as you sleep.
Things might be different if people who were dissatisfied with the Catholic Church raised kids who went on to become priests and sisters, etc. However, that rarely happens. When liberals abandon the Catholic Church themselves (and the comments above amply demonstrate this phenomenon), or fail to raise children who are interested in a faith their parents question, it only grows more conservative.
Even more frightening for Carroll is the well-documented fact that it is the conservative churches in America with increasing memberships. Evangelicals, Mormons, etc. Liberal churches, like the Episcopalians and Mainline Protestants have membership rates that are dropping precipitously. The sociologist Rodney Stark has come up with some interesting theories to describe these trends.
Perhaps one of the most significant things about the RCC that must die is the ubiquitous use of "Father" and "Papa". Words mean things and those words are clearly power mechanisms, designed to make the average members of the church feel like children who must be instructed and condescended to while making the Priests, Nuns and hierarchy feel like well, Fathers and Mothers and Masters. The self aggrandizing titles of Father, Mother, Lord, Excellency, Holiness (god, what a joke), Papa have the effect, perhaps the design of making the average catholic feel "less than" while making the leadership feel "more than". The development of hubris and arrogance among the "more than" is self-fulfilling in such a power structured system. And the hubris leads to blind self-righteousness, and the law-unto-themselves the hierarchy has become. The "simple, humble and poor....like Jesus" church that Rev Martin hopes to see cannot and will not happen until the words are changed.
Of course, then it would no longer be the RCC. The Roman hierarchy is caught in a trap of it's own making.
This issue goes back to Martin Luther and Reformation. The Church has continued its ways to hold itself above and beyond any state power.
Unfortunatetly, this pope was the choice of the Opus Dei faction (which seems to be currently in control not only within the Curia but holding most key posts, as well) and it is Opus Dei's passion to return to "the good old days" of the church's broader temporal control (such as the world was in awe to witness at the time of the Spanish Inquisition).
http://religionannarbor.wordpress.com/
I used to think that "Spare the rod and spoil the child," meant- beat the children.
Hermen Eutics taught me that the "rod" is actually the shepard's staff, used to guide not beat the sheep.
There is still a lot I don't know.
You mention sexual morality. How many fundamentalists regard "be fruitful and multiply"? Taken literally that would pulverize the earth's resources, and yet there are growing numbers of the Quiverful movements where annual pregnancies are mandated.
So, yes, that sexual morality "seems to harsh" and stoning those who are homosexuals or anything else outside the 'norm' just adds to dozens of other examples one can garner from a fundamentalist mindset.
Of course there's always the stoning of children who are disobedient, and somewhere there is "god" reining bears on children.
S the list goes on and onm religionannarbor.
As for "popular values"?? What...., like democracy, equality of women, integration, etc? Was the march on Selma a mere "popular value"?
Yes, messages are taken too literally from scripture. And I repeat, Allister McGrath, in terms of your interpretation of him, is wrong.
Let me clarify something before I answer. McGrath (if the quote belongs to him) only said the first part of my post (fundamentalism being defined as 'religious people I don't like') and I think he was being somewhat facetious when he said that. The rest of the post was my own thought.
Regarding your other questions: Your first couple of questions relate to how much fundamentalists love their neighbors. I can tell you as someone who grew up in liberal ann arbor (son of hippies) that I once shared your view. But a few years ago, I spent some time in a rural community and attended a fundamentalist church for a while. While I may not agree with all of the doctrine, I can tell you that the people were not the stereotype. Some were very loving and would give you the shirt off their backs in a heartbeat. Not everyone of course...but no group of people is perfect. So you may want to rethink the stereotypes you hold. Try attending a fundamentalist church a few times and see how you are treated. My guess is that they will treat you very well and show much love. (to be con't)
http://religionannarbor.wordpress.com/
Regarding the stoning and some of the other OT commandments, fundamentalists actually tend to be dispensationalists. This means that they view the bible as full of "dispensations" in which God acts differently in different eras. So they would point to the stoning commands of the OT and say, "no longer applies."
Regarding "popular values", what I was alluding to there was what is often referred to as "zeitgeist". The spirit of the times. Things like "democracy, equality of women, integration, etc" are certainly part of today's zeitgeist. The problem that I would pose to you is that zeitgeist is a horrible way to get values. Values need to be based on something outside of a society (versus being the pulse of a society) otherwise, how could you ever criticize popular morality?
This is why I would argue that Biblical statutes that say that we are all made in God's image are a much better defense for the minority than an appeal to zeitgeist. Minorities are protected by the bible and the bible will not change. Zeitgeist could change tomorrow....then look out.
Anyway, I can tell you are passionate about these things and I really respect that.
http://religionannarbor.wordpress.com/
This problem must be looked at in its historical context.
Some of the more salient points you raise:
You say: “The problem cannot be solved merely with the Pope stepping down.”
I agree the Papacy (as we know it) must go, along with the concept of infallibility..
You say: “The Church needs to change. It needs to be more democratic. It needs to be more respectful of lay people. Above all, it needs to be more respectful of women. .”
I must go farther- the Church must recognize the equality of women.
The Church has other issues; like objection to contraceptives for the poor, the doctrine of transubstantiation and the whole issue of human sexuality.
Then I'm afraid that you're going to have to go very far, indeed, before you ever reach that destination..
BTW I think part of the priest sexual abuse scandal has to do with organizations being wholely incapable of regulating themselves. It is not an excuse but seems to explain much, plus the nature of abusers was not as well understood.
By the way someone mentioned Catholicism not being biblically literalist. It is very literalist. Very few lay Catholics, if having any doubts about the "Virgin Birth" or the literal resurrection of Jesus would voice those opinions publicly, certainly not in the presence of their priest or bishop. Catholicism is very literalist in how it portrays "God" as triune and that in turn images "God" as man in the sky. Catholicism has a very strong belief in miracles so that there are no other discussions other than Jesus having literally walked on water, the literal feeding fish and loaves to five thousand pilgrims, or raising Lazarus from the dead.
Unfortunately the ROCK AFTERSCHOOL ad is interferring with the posting at this time. Huff Po please put it somewhere else so that typing responses is not interfered with. It is only going to turn people off where it is now situated!!!