I was born in 1940 in England. There is, therefore, not much surprise that I grew up with a prejudice against Roman Catholicism. It was not just the bells and smells and all of that stuff about the Virgin Mary -- although that was bad enough -- but that the Church was run by foreigners. The Archbishop of Canterbury may not have been that impressive, but at least he was one of ours. He was British.
As it happens, I moved to Canada in 1962 and then on to the States in 2000. So I have spent most of my life as a foreigner. I feel quite alien now when I go back to England and don't much care for the beer. I'd like to think that I have grown up in many ways since those early days and that one way I have matured is with respect to institutions that seem to me strange because they are outside my immediate cultural ken. I confess that I still have trouble with the Mormons, but with respect to Catholicism, I have come a long way.
In part, this is because I am a professional philosopher. You cannot do my job without coming to respect the work of the great Catholic theologians-philosophers. I read something in Saint Augustine and think, "No you're wrong. You missed this point." Then I turn the page and he says, "Oh, by the way, you may think I've missed this point. Here's how I explain it." He is simply a superior mind and makes me proud to be a philosopher and humble about what I can do. I feel the same way about others, including Aquinas, even though there is much with which I disagree.
I work a lot on nineteenth-century thought, and a particular favorite of mine is John Henry Newman, the great theologian who began life as an Evangelical, moved on to lead the Anglican High Church movement, and then crossed over to Rome, ending his life as a cardinal. I'm drawn to him in part because I taught for over thirty years in Canada in a society that was in respects as much Catholic as Protestant. My university was in a small town in Southern Ontario, with a population that was about one third Italian -- most of them post-war immigrants, or their children and grandchildren -- and that is before you start to count the Dutch and the Poles and the Ukrainians and so many others. My classes were filled with kids whose last names contained more cees and vees and zees than seemed possible. And I loved them. Bringing together so many people of such diverse backgrounds, including religions, made my classes so vital and worthwhile. The thought of teaching in a monoculture of Presbyterianism -- the predominant Protestant religion in that part of the world -- made me shudder.
I say all of this as a prolegomenon to the sex scandal that engulfs the Church and that seems to get worse daily. One saw from the beginning that it was truly dreadful, but at the same time one wanted -- I very much wanted -- to keep it in perspective and not to let it negate the very great accomplishments, both intellectual and social, of the Catholic Church. Now that I live in America, I think of the very great worth of Catholic institutions of higher education. One of my outstanding grad students at the moment was an undergrad at a small Jesuit school in Connecticut -- and he is not alone. Also, I am sure that because I had been prejudiced, I wanted to cut the Church some slack. Let others with cleaner hands than I do the judging.
But not anymore. In Canada at the moment there is a huge scandal over the way in which a prominent priest, a good friend of John Paul the Second, no less, and a known sexual predator from way back when, was protected and shielded by the hierarchy. Do not take my word for it: a letter about this man -- written in 1993 by a bishop in the Pope's envoy to Canada -- has just emerged. A letter of greater moral depravity would be hard to imagine. Read it yourself.
Go over the contents. It is admitted that this man, a priest, had molested at least four or five boys: "Recently it has been brought to our attention that there was not one but four or five victims in all." No one was disputing this. He was therefore not merely immoral; he was, in the eyes of the law, a criminal. (He is now actually serving a prison sentence in Canada.) He had to be got rid of. Ship him off to Rome! The letter continues: "I would not object to his being given another chance since it would remove him from the Canadian scene." Why was he not simply going to be moved around Canada? Because all of the other bishops knew about him, too, and didn't want him on their patch. But they didn't mind Rome taking him on.
However, here is the catch: as a chum of the Pope, he was likely to get some kind of promotion. This would upset the victims. But they are dumb Pollacks and not about to kick up, thank goodness, even though their councilors are urging that they do just this: "One redeeming [redeeming!] factor is that it would appear that the victims involved are of Polish descent and their respect for the priesthood and the Church has made them refrain from making these allegations public or laying a criminal charge against a priest." However, the victims are already tense because they hear that the man is traveling freely around the world without supervision -- to Thailand, no less -- and if he gets a promotion, especially if he gets made a bishop, then they are going to go ballistic. More worrying, they are going to go public, and that will be awful for the diocese and the Church generally. We've already had to stamp on another priest who found out about everything and talked to one of the victim's mothers. He expressed his concerns to the Vicar General and for his pains had to be "cautioned."
There is no concern whatsoever for the victims, simply fear of the story getting out and advice for how to prevent it happening. And that is it. The letter ends: "With respectful and prayerful good wishes, I remain, Your Excellency, Faithfully yours in Christ, J. R. Windle, Bishop of Pembroke."
I have long been involved in the fight against creationism and its successor, intelligent design theory. To this end, I have embraced strongly the philosophy that science and religion speak of different things -- a philosophy sometimes known as neo-orthodoxy or the independence position. This means that although I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, it does not follow that I cannot respect those who do. Together, believers and non-believers can join in fighting what we both see as travesties of science properly understood and religion properly understood. For this reason I have opposed the so-called New Atheists in their scorn for all and any religious beliefs. And I might add, somewhat proudly, that I, too, had their scorn poured down on my head.
Recently, the New Atheists' most prominent representative, Richard Dawkins, wrote a highly emotive piece for the Washington Post, in which he derided the present pope and expressed glee and satisfaction that such a person was now leading the Catholic Church. In Dawkins's judgment, not only was this no less than the Church deserved, but such leadership could only hasten the Church's demise. I thought at the time that Dawkins was over the top and wrong. I now think that he was right and that it was I who was wrong. Let me say at once that, unlike Dawkins, I don't necessarily want to see this as the end of religion or even of the Catholic Church in some form. I stress that although I cannot share the beliefs of Christians, I respect them and applaud the good that is done in the name of their founder. But I do now think that as presently constituted, the Catholic Church is corrupt and should be eradicated.
You might argue that this is to go too far. But what is the alternative? Vatican Three, perhaps? The Church could open its doors to married priests, give women a proper role (if we can appoint a woman to the Supreme Court, why cannot a woman become a member of the College of Cardinals?), make a place within for gays and other minorities. It could recognize birth control for the blessing that it is and stop insisting that the moment the sperm gets to the ovum, nothing else matters but to preserve this entity, even though such a stand causes unnumbered cases of pain and sadness (and certainly does little to reduce the abortion rate) and leads the Catholic bishops to oppose universal health care, quite apart from the fact that it all flies in the face of the official philosophy of the Church, Thomism. And I could continue.
This will not happen. This last week, the Pope appointed an archbishop for Los Angeles. The appointee is a member of Opus Dei, for goodness's sake. You don't have to subscribe to the nuttiness of The Da Vinci Code to know what this means: he belongs to an organization that throve under Generalissimo Franco, about as right-wing as it is possible to get. Far from trying to reform, the Church is digging in and digging in.
Dawkins is right. The moral mess gets worse and worse. Hope of change is illusory. Götterdämmerung beckons. Although we have different motives and undoubtedly hope for different outcomes, I join Dawkins in welcoming the prospect.
Kim Michele Richardson: NUN ABUSE: A Survivor's Message for the Vatican
Tom Matlack: The Man Who Brought Down the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church would then no longer be the Catholic Church. It has chosen to live or die by its traditional doctrine.
I don't think that the Catholic Church will cease to exist in my lifetime, more's the pity, but I do hope the RCC stays on its current path of eroding its own "moral authority". It is an immoral institution.
This isn't true, no atheist who hates everything religious would write any sort of article called "atheist for Jesus" of wear this t-shirt:
http://img688.imageshack.us/i/atheistsforjesus.jpg/
"Let me say at once that, unlike Dawkins, I don't necessarily want to see this as the end of religion or even of the Catholic Church in some form."
Has he said that? I have heard him saying on TV that he hopes this ends the Catholic Church as a source for morality but that isn't the same things as hoping or expecting the Catholic Church to crumble down so to speak.
PZ Meyers reacts to this btw:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/michael_ruse_agrees_with_richa.php
The only people that relish in using obscure language are priests that speak latin, so you can be impressed with their "contributions to intellectualism" even though you cannot understand what they are saying, and posers that want you to think they are smart.
I am all for a separation of church and state but to give these people diplomatic status is absurd. Boston's alleged ring leader in the scandal is hiding in the Vatican to avoid prosecution. He at the very least should return and face the music.
It's aggravating that religion has done so much to establish and back the sciences, but all people can talk about is how bad Galileo was treated (he deserved it; just bother reading his bio sometime) and that evolution was considered a bad thing (weird how Darwin's trip was financed by a local church). You have strides in medicine, biology, and astronomy that exist only because of religion. It's surprising how many scientists and mathematicians have become devout because of their explorations. But let's ignore that because it's not convenient to the argument.
If atheists want religion out of politics, then quit attacking the religious. Seriously; the Church has changed its policy (so that police can deal with the molesters), and now is the time to attack it for the policy of taking molesters away from the public? I'm just a bit confused....
What an incredibly ignorant and myopic post you have submitted.
There is only one reason why the RC church has anew policy of dealing with child rapists...only one...because THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. The child abuse has been going on and has been known for many decades (actually centuries). Letters and past actions clearly show that church hierarchy knew of these rampant cases of child abuse, rape, and torture. The leaders of the church have aided the molesters. Do you not get it...they actually hid the rapes and helped the abusers to find more vitims who were unaware that a predatory priest was sent into their community of believers!
It is 2010 for Christ's sake (no pun intended). The fact that you are trying to rationalize and defend the actions of the RC church hierarchy is both laughable and sad.
You should also re-read your history of the church's actions when it comes to science and enlightenment. The RC church has to be dragged kicking and screaming in order to listen to or consider any scientific findings and truths. The ridiculous "condom condemnation" by the pope in Africa is a recent example. They continue to be an enemy of science and enlightenment.
I personally think that what seem to be quite obvious attempts to hide the issue, shuffling priests from Parish to parish and allowing the same crimes to be repeated, time and time again is truly dreadful. Being the cynic that i am i find it difficult to believe that the pope had no knowledge of these things, it is possible he did not and i suppose we shouldn't rush to judgement.
I can't see a papal trial actually happening, though in many ways agree it would be a good route to go down, for if the pope is truly innocent of wrongoing, what better place to prove it than in a court of law.
A rather sad but true observation is that jokes about child molesting catholic priests have always been around in my lifetime, in Hong Kong and the UK, i have a Canadian friend has a plethora of somewhat dodgy jokes on the matter. Can't help but think that there must be a modicum of truth in them as they have originated from so many areas....
Clearly, the evidence says that there is more pedophilia amongst priests than the population at large. And what would you expect when the hierarchy has a bronze age hatred of women (and sex) embodied in its core belief?
Before the age of fast communication, the church simply overlooked sexual activity amongst its priests. The famous scene of the children dancing around a waterfountain in "The Sound of Music" was filmed in a courtyard at Mirabel Palace (Salzburg) a "convent" where the church hierarchy kept their mistresses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/landscape_leadership/2744005383/
Imagine such a fixture today, where a news reporter could stand at the fountain while 500 kids played in the courtyard and asked why does the church leadership have so many kids when they are not married?
I do know that brave abuse victims and brave lawyers (yes, they too got death threats and it costs them a fortune to bring these cases - in the beginning - there were tons of legal battles over whether they could even bring them - statutes of limitation, whether the church could be held responsible, etc. The church has unlimited funds to fight and the lawyers didn't) who originally brought these lawsuits started, I think, in the early 1980's and it has taken all this time to really get the church to deal with it. The abuse victim's groups - SNAP - have been tireless. They have my total respect and awe. This has not been an easy battle - they were vilified and often forced out of their churches and families because they were disbelieved. And the church is still steamrolling and trying to blame the messengers for their mess.
And birth control, acts of homosexuality, and abortion will always be wrong according to the Church. They all go against Catholic teaching that sex is a sacrament, to be performed among married couples for the ultimate purpose of creating life. Trying to reconcile that with gay marriage is relativistic.
Is this terrible? Yes. But it's not going to fundamentally change the Church in any way. The hierarchy made mistakes and now they're getting bad press and criticism. An institution as old and resistant to modern trends as the Church is used to it by now.
effective forms of birth control, including (but not limited to) : being sexual with
prepubescent children, engaging in pederastic relationships with male adolescents,
and maintaining sexual liasons with other adult males. This has always been a part
of Church culture, carried over from the Roman and Greek classical eras.
And it is by no means 'over'. Not even 'unfortunate' from their perspective.
More like 'necessary'.
Trying to reconcile the above behaviors with the Catholic teaching that 'sex is a sacrament,
to be performed among (don't you mean between, otherwise it sounds like an orgy)
married couples for the ultimate purpose of creating life' is an exercise in crazy-making.
The other part of the issue is that this is a difficult problem to deal with. Try prosecuting a child molestation case: Not only do you need to prove that it happened, but you also need to drag the kid into court and make him confront his attacker, possibly traumatizing the child again. It's that burden of proof that makes the issue more interesting than it needs to be.
It would be nice to see an atheist look at both sides of the coin, not just the side that's most important to them, and see that this is a really complicated issue, and not just a case of making sure that the bad guy gets caught....
Now, this would often occur at the tip of a blade or the point of a spear, but in the end, their 'gods' did not save them from their end nor prevent them from being overtaken by others who had different beliefs. They felt forsaken, and the myths were abandoned. The Romans knew this well, at least eventually, as they attempted to unite their own conquered peoples under a religious banner for the sake of control. The Catholic church remains an extension of that effort.
Events such as these that the church is producing will eventually cause those who believe in the current mythos, to abandon it in favor of some other myth, or perhaps in favor of free thought and belief of their own accord.
No one believes that the Greek gods are still at large, nor the former Roman gods... nor the ancient Egyptian beliefs. Eventually, this will be what befalls the current myths that the Catholic church et al. Especially if they keep up this like of behavior.
(whatever that is) on a mission.
Rather than an attempt to explain or pro and con a culture that sets up
its own criteria for what is wrong and what is right thereby creating guilt
and insecurity and a host of other mental illnesses amongst the many
other options open to a philosopher for a blog, we get an expose on the
shortcomings of a particular organization. An editorial, if you will. By a
"philosopher" no less. I'm no friend of any organized religion (just the
people who are taken in by them), but please.....!?!
"...I very much wanted -- to keep it in perspective and not to let it negate
the very great accomplishments the very great accomplishments, both
intellectual and social, of the Catholic Church"
What does philosophy say about 'having your cake and eating it too'?
"...I have no religious beliefs whatsoever..."
Yes, actually you do. You just conveniently forget to put "anti-" in front of
it and tell your readers that you have anti-religious beliefs and that they
have become your "religious beliefs".
Systemic?
Oh, and "throve"??? Throve? What dictionary did that come out of? Was
there something wrong with "thrived under"?
It is bad grammar; what he means is "thrived". In the same way, as my mom used to say, d-o-v-e spells "dove" (a bird). You would not say, "Jack dove into the water." The correct way to say that sentence is, "Jack dived into the water."
And WTF is a "professional philosopher"? Seems to be the same thing as "pompous a$$".
Evolution will sort it out.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has a couple of fundamental problems that it must address:
Pedophile problem - could be the people attracted to the priesthood, or something done to them after they enter the 'hood, but something there is not right, and must be rectified. It can't be ignored, which, apparently, it has been for entirely too long!
Integrity problem - there is none, which has now been exposed. That can no longer be hidden. Pretty pitiful. How could anyone believe what they tell you, religious, or otherwise?
The Church must clean this up, or, ultimately, its only potential pool of new recruits will be the same pool of folks who tend to embrace fundamentalism of various sorts - those with critical thinking deficiencies, who use their leaders to tell them what to think and believe. Everyone else will bail, which will ruin the party for the Church hierarchy - the punch bowl will be taken away.
The first problem is relatively easy to fix, compared to the second. Appropriate steps can be taken, whatever they are, to fix the pedophilia. What can be done to fix the credibility gap? How do you get that back, once it's gone?
Worse, the Catholic faith appears to be based on an authoritarian hierarchy whose legitimacy is supposedly endorsed by God, so people are supposed to obey them. God endorses liars?
Who's gonna believe THAT?
Why is the Church still supporting priests removed for molesting kids? Because the Church has an obligation to care for its clerics; further equity requires that a man who has spent a large part of his adult life in service to the Church rather than gathering retirement assets should not be left without support in his old age.
Does anyone know more about this? Does the RCC support either priest or nuns in retirement?