Greg Krehbiel
If half of this is true, how is it possible to take the Catholic Church seriously?
by Greg Krehbiel on 18 March 2009
See this review of Leon Podles’ book on the sex-abuse crisis, or read excerpts from the introduction.
When the abuse crisis flared up several years ago I decided that I would not give any money to the archdiocese until I saw genuine reform — “pink palace” seminaries closed, bishops sacked, enablers exposed and tried, etc.
There hasn’t been genuine reform. I think the Catholic Church’s strategy is to wait until the problem simmers down and people forget about it. That seems to be working, by and large.
I’ve heard the excuses offered by defenders and apologists.
- Everybody focuses on priests, but the problem is even worse in public schools
- We’ve always known there are sinners in the church, this is nothing new
- The church was misled by the “experts” — psychologists who told them pedophilia could be cured
- Why focus so much on the negative — there are so many good priests
- etc. etc.
The excuses are largely true, but … irrelevant.
It seems logical that abusers would be drawn to jobs where they can find victims, so any job where people work with kids is going to attract a disproportionate number of creeps. It’s sick, but it seems to be true.
The existence of creeps in the priesthood is somewhat of a scandal, but the real scandal is what the church has done about it — and failed to do.
If I were to list the charges, it might go something like this.
1. From seemingly reliable accounts, there are notorious seminaries that promote rampant sexual license. To my knowledge there aren’t similar places that train teachers.
2. The bishops moved abusers from place to place without notifying the lucky recipients of these precious gifts. We haven’t similar behavior by school systems. Again, I might be wrong. Maybe this has happened, but I’m not aware of it.
3. There seems to be evidence of a “lavendar mafia” in the Catholic Church that protects homosexual interests. We haven’t seen evidence of the same in the school system.
4. When victims of clerical abuse have come forward, they’ve received nothing but grief from their “shepherds” and their hired legal guns. We haven’t seen the school system exerting similar pressure on the parents of abused children to hush the story up.
5. When credible accusations have been made against popular, effective “leaders” (like Fr. Maciel), they were (for quite a long time) ignored or swept under the carpet by the Vatican. We haven’t seen the school system do anything like that.
Again, this is just my perception. Maybe I’m entirely wrong on this and the schools have been guilty of the same sort of crap. But I haven’t seen any word of it.
Maybe I’m completely off on this, but it seems to me that all the excuses add up to one great big nothing. The Catholic Church is institutionally guilty. At the highest levels.
With all this stewing in the back of my mind I read today about the pope going to Africa and saying that condoms are not the solution to the AIDS problem.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. Maybe they aren’t. I don’t know or care. But if you’re interested, here’s an interesting article that touches on the subject.
I’ve studied the anti-contraception arguments to death and I find them ponderous and unpersuasive. I would rather try to defend Nixon’s wage and price controls than the Catholic Church’s position on contraception.
But whatever you think about contraception, condoms and AIDS, the one thing that’s certain is that the Catholic Church has lost all credibility on the subject.
Not with the faithful. I’m not talking about them. There are some who believe the dogmas about the Catholic Church’s infallibility on faith and morals, and that infallibility is not threatened by the existence of predatory priests, useless bishops, clueless popes and institutional wickedness.
I’m talking about the rest of the world’s population.
Why should they believe the church on condoms, or priestly celibacy, or a male priesthood, or any number of other issues when the church has such a dreadful track record?
How can anybody even attempt to defend all this with a straight face?
2009-03-18 » Greg Krehbiel
18 March 2009 @ 8:58 pm
The truth is even worse than I portrayed in my book. A cardinal whom I know was frustrated with Pope John Paul II’s refusal to act; he pleaded with the Pope, but the Pope said that he would love to do something, but “they won’t let me.” They? The curia doesn’t control of pope, or do they?
As to the public schools: I am sure there is abuse in the schools, but I have never seen any serious comparison of the incidence of abuse in the Church and in other institutions. In any case, that is irrelevant. Teachers are not representatives of God. If they abuse a student, they do vast harm, but the harm an abusive priest does is far greater, since it places an obstacle between the victim and God.
The toleration of the abuse by the bishops and the Vatican is very hard to understand, either by me or by the few honest members of the hierarchy with whom I have spoken. My darkest suspicion is that pederasty has been entrenched in the clergy as an inheritance from classical antiquity, and that only occasionally does it come to light. St. Peter Damian denounced it in the Middle Ages, but nothing was done to extirpate it.
18 March 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Excellent article!! And great response by Lee Podles!! I used to be a catholic. I actually used to be a religious sister – habit and all!! Then, when I was a young sister, my superior sexually abused me almost nightly for a period of 2 years. The abuse itself was bad enough, but the treatment of the congregation after I reported it was seriously un-Christlike!! So, I left the congregation, and as I met other men and women who had been sexually abused by priests and sisters and heard their horror stories about the treatment at the hands of the hierarchy, I left the church. There is no accountability, no change, and no intention of change. They think they will get away with the horror they have allowed to be visited upon us. My only consolation is that someday they will have to come face to face with their Maker, and although God is a merciful God, God is also just. I used to be naive enough to believe that there is no one in hell but the bad angels. Now I think there is a very special place for those popes, cardinals, bishops, and religious leaders who have lied about and covered up for pedophile priests and sisters.
18 March 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Mr. Podles — thanks for commenting.
There are definitely some very disturbing trends.
As you well know, religion seems to be a predominantly feminine affair, and the priesthood seems to attract a disproportionate number of men who are confused about their sexuality. Of course there are manly priests who live exemplary lives, but there are an increasing number of people who think (with some justification) that the priesthood has become a gay profession.
Have you seen that oovoo commercial with the priest, the rabbi, the iman and … somebody else? The priest is clearly effeminate. That seems to be the natural caricature.
I had hoped that Benedict was going to get past JPII’s biases and change things. He seemed to be heading in the right direction when he reinstated the investigation of Fr. Maciel and issued a ruling against him — although it was a relatively wimpy ruling.
But it’s as if there’s some sort of institutional momentum that keeps things going in a set direction.
If this is true — if, as you suspect, pederasty has been entrenched in the clergy for generations — how is it possible to trust the church?
I know all the tired excuses and exceptions and caveats. I know Judas was an apostle, that Peter betrayed Christ and came close to apostasy in Antioch, etc. etc. I know there’s always a way to defend orthodoxy and make some excuse that leaves a crack in the door to let a sliver of hope shine through. But it doesn’t pass the smell test or the B.S. meter. At some point you have to admit that too large a weight is being hung on too frail a branch.
I don’t think there’s any more room for excuses or arguments or justifications. I think we’ve come to a turning point. Or at least I have (a long time ago, in fact).
On the one hand is the rational choice — that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church have a fine intellectual tradition that, in the final analysis, explain almost enough (but not quite enough) to justify their other-worldly claims.
On the other hand is the leap of faith … which doesn’t appeal to me.
I think it’s a time for miracles. If we’re supposed to belief this ridiculously improbable message, there ought to be some ridiculously improbable sign. There ought to be some divine stamp of approval.
I’m perfectly willing to admit my ignorance. I’ve been wrong so many times it makes my head spin. I am more than willing to say that my puny brain can’t wrap itself around these huge issues. (I can’t even explain why AIG failed, so I don’t see why I should expect to be able to explain divine things.)
But if I’m supposed to believe that a bunch of abusers and their accomplices are God’s messengers on Earth, they’d better heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers and cast out demons.
19 March 2009 @ 1:44 am
Lets take the long view for a minute or two. The Catholic Church is the oldest (2,000 years) continually existing organization and the largest human organization that has ever existed (1.2 billion members) and it is run by a cabal of about 3,500 men (bishops) as a sort of birthright thing. These guys act and practically believe it is their personal fiefdom to do as they please with the resources of the organiztion. Clerical sexual abuse is a minor irritant to these men. It is not a major issue in their minds. It will blow over.
Bishops make up the rules, they make up the proper response to the rules and they play out the awards and the punishments with absolute power. Come on! Why would the Catholic Church care what you or I think about anything? Ultimately this is a business management problem. The stakeholders and the shareholders are both being duped by the board of directors. The board is going to do whatever it pleases. Who is going to stop them? You? Me? Lets get serious. We have no power. The bishops know it. This has been going on I am quite sure since the very beginning of the Christian movement. Even Jesus himself commented on the gravity of the situation. I doubt that he was referring to some theoretical case when he said that a millstone needed to be tied around the neck of a pedaphile and he should be thrown into the ocean. He knew cases or he never would have said anything. This is a problem anywhere an adult has too much power over a child or subordinate.
The Church needs to die, completely and utterly so that the Holy Spirit can enter it again. It is a cadaver. Its actions re: child abuse show that.
19 March 2009 @ 3:22 am
Greg: addressing two of your 5 numbered points:
1) schools for teachers that “promote rampant sexual license” are called “universities.” Or said differently, there is as much and more of this in a university than you’d find at a “pink palace.”
3) I think we have indeed seen the “lavender mafia” in our school systems. But our schools, these days, are somewhat “lavender colored,” so they don’t stand out so much. This is particularly true of university “schools,” which couldn’t hardly be more lavender if they tried.
Anyway, I think you are right about the condoms topic. When I read the various headlines, all I could think how clueless the church is. The only possible vantage to understand “no condoms” is from that of a born-again Catholic. Anything else is a waste of breath. I’m reminded of James 2:14 which suggested that wishing well, but offering no assistence, is useless. Likewise, condemning a practice as sinful, without the context of the Gospel, is meaningless.
Said differently, I think the concept of “sin” was inherent in Jewish culture. But our modern gentile thought does not have an inherent notion of “sin.” So it is that much more important to approach the world with topics such as “purpose” (which we lack but desire) rather than “sin,” which we don’t even acknowledge.
19 March 2009 @ 4:36 am
Greg,
It’s an adulterous generation that seeks a sign. Remember that sign here is a synonym for miracle.
There are and have always been very bad people in the hierarchy of the church, even some bad popes. It’s undeniable.
Remember what Christ said about the Scribes and Pharisees. They have the seat of Moses and you should do what they say. Now, the Church has the seat of Peter and you should listen to what they say.
Also, the story of the sowing of wheat and tares from Matthew 13:24-30 bears on this area. Note that Jesus said that the wheat and tares would grow together until “the end of the age”, not that they would gradually be choked out by the Wheat.
I do find it ironic that you appear to reject the Church’s teaching on contraception. These problems are all fruit of the same tree. Abusers and those who use contraception both treat their bodies as instruments of pleasure alone, removed from their true function.
And, there’s perhaps another way these subjects are related. You’ve said that you understand how the priesthood might attract the wrong person. It might be the case that the pool of priests has been depleted due to widespread contraception among Catholics. While Catholics have less children, the families still want further generations and discourage their children from entering ordained life, but that kind of consideration doesn’t apply to abusers who don’t want families for themselves. Thus, the percentage of abusers among priests goes up.
You might seek out Msgr. Pope and see if he can offer you anything on these issues. He seems to be an upright priest with a lot of good things to say.
19 March 2009 @ 9:56 am
Mystagogue — universities are certainly infected to a large degree, but nothing like what I’ve heard about seminaries. Remember that a seminary is a boarding school. You’re there almost 24×7.
Jordan — I know the excuses and counter-arguments and have heard them a thousand times. Hearing them for the 1001st time won’t change anything. The arguments simply aren’t convincing.
The attempt to deflect the current problem by pointing to problems in the past is what I call the “no worse than” argument, which basically goes like this.
“Sure, the bishops are useless and the pope is complicit in their uselessness, but that’s no worse than it’s been before.”
So far so good, that’s just a historical statement.
The next part is the catch. Do you then conclude, “so this really isn’t a problem — today’s situation doesn’t change anything,” or do you conclude, “uh … was that supposed to be an argument?”
It’s a clever approach because it lowers expectations. But you’re still left with an organization whose claims don’t match reality.
19 March 2009 @ 11:07 am
Greg, as a complete outsider on this I have two things to say.
First, you hit the nail on the head when you said that if we are to accept wildly improbable statements as fact then the guys who make those statements need some kind of credibility in areas we can verify. Like you, I’m just not seeing that, and not only in the Catholic Church.
And I don’t mean “That guy claims to be a spiritual leader, but he cheats on his income taxes.” I mean “That guy claims to be a moral leader, but his behavior WRT other people is despicable.”
Second, as Dad used to say, any organization that requires members to swear off sex including masturbation for the rest of their lives is bound to be a pervert-magnet.
19 March 2009 @ 11:19 am
I never heard Dad say that.
Clerical celibacy has always struck me as a very odd thing. It reminds me of a book I read about Merlin. He couldn’t have sex (according to this book) because it messed up his magic.
19 March 2009 @ 11:28 am
About the need for improbable claims to be backed up with serious evidence, the difficulty here is that all the evidence is remote. The improbable claim that Jesus is the Son of God is backed up by his miracles, resurrection, etc., which is fine for somebody who sees the miracles, or talks to the guy who saw the risen Christ, but the chain of evidence gets increasingly long over the years.
I think this is part of the reason why evidences for Christianity switched over the years, from “this Jesus you crucified has been raised,” to “Jesus founded this incredible community full of people with heroic virtue,” to “I am imagining a thing greater than which nothing can exist,” etc.
IOW, as the distance from the events grows, the arguments become more philosophical.
The Gadarene demoniac saw Christ perform a miracle and was converted. Nowadays a person considers a whole array of arguments: evidence for the resurrection, evidence for the reliability of the Gospels, questions about design in life or the universe, moral arguments, various kinds of historical arguments, etc.
It gets mind-bogglingly complex.
19 March 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Greg, as much as I agree that what the schools are doing is irrelevant (or said another way, if the Church is only doing as good as public schools, that’s a condemnation of its own), but I have to disagree with points #2 and #3.
For #2, there were a number of cases of it in California in the 80’s and 90’s. They’d move Jr. High teachers to elementary school and stuff like that to get them away from the kids who were going through puberty, or vise versa. They cleaned up their act not long before the Church did.
For #3, the public schools are the source of homosexual indoctrination and there are powerful lobbies that make sure it stays that way and punish those who don’t comply with their agenda. This is particularly true in the credential programs.
But I think that’s my bigger complaint with your thoughts: Things ARE happening to fix the problems, but they’re happening at the speed of the Church so it’s going to take another 20 years before it’s 95% complete (just like it took 40 years for the problem to come into clear view). Priests are no longer being moved around. Seminaries are being cleaned up, one by one, slowly but surely. Instead of fighting every lawsuit, most diocese settled their cases for huge sums of money (and did so while avoiding bankruptcy, which was the “quick out” that many wanted them to do).
Has it been perfect? No. Is there more work to do? Yes. But that doesn’t mean that no action has been taken or that they don’t care.
I will agree with you that the issue has nearly destroyed the Church’s credibility. However, I would argue that no matter what was done in the last 5 years, the damage would have been the same.
Finally, you’re right that there is no way I can convince you of the Church’s overall view of contraception. But hopefully at least I can make a dent on condoms in Africa:
Condoms are not as effective against AIDS as many indicate. The only real way to prevent AIDS from spreading (as opposed to just slowing it) it to promote monogamy and restraint. Promoting condoms gives people a false sense of security that implicitely encourages sexual promiscuity.
19 March 2009 @ 12:36 pm
These “monarchs” are only interested in maintaining or regaining their wealth, their “good name” and their entitlement to a royal lifestyle. They are not concerned about enriching the souls or the bodies of the common person.
CER
19 March 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Ken — it is not only possible but likely that the problem in the schools is worse than I think because the media is far more likely to criticize the church than the schools, and a story that the church or a bishop was complicit in some evil act is more “newsworthy” (in the sense of “shocking”) than that a school was.
I believe you that “things are being done,” but IMO it’s too little too late to rescue the church’s credibility.
About contraception, I spent several years studying the arguments in a whole lot of detail, and I was involved in a lot of online “discussions” with very knowledgeable people. I know the arguments. I just find them unpersuassive.
What it all boils down to is the assertion that it is immoral to do something that renders the sex act infertile. (It’s okay to recognize when it happens to be infertile, so NFP is okay, but it’s immoral to make it infertile.)
Nobody is able to explain to my satisfaction why that should be so, or show how that principle applies in other areas. In fact, it clearly does not. It’s okay to make eating non-nutritious (with no-calorie foods). It’s okay to run on a treadmill so you don’t get anywhere (making it “non-locomotive”).
It’s a gratuitous assertion invented exclusively for this case.
19 March 2009 @ 1:54 pm
John,
I’m not constructing an argument. I’m not trying to be clever. I’m not trying to get you to accept that the Church is the Church founded by Christ or that Christ is the living Son of the Living God through argumentation. Only Faith can inform you of these things and if you had faith then no counter-argument could prevail.
What I’m making is an appeal. An appeal to the authority of Scripture and to the authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I believe you once professed your belief in that authority to enter the Church.
If your expectations were high, that was not the Church’s fault. In Jeremiah 17:5 we read:
“Thus says the LORD: Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings, who seeks his strength in flesh, whose heart turns away from the LORD.”
As you pointed out, the Apostles themselves were sinful. I consider Peter’s Sin, denying the Christ he’d seen with his own eyes Transfigured before him, just about the worst Sin imaginable, save the Sin against the Holy Spirit.
There are numerous examples down through the centuries, St. John Chrysostom in the 4th Century said that the floor of heaven is littered with the skulls of Bishops. I bet I could find examples from every century of publicly sinful people who were high in the Church and similar statements like this one by Chrysostom.
The Church has always been and will continue to be sinful until it is redeemed. I also never said that “this isn’t a problem”. It’s a terrible problem. We are called to fight this, not desert the Church in it’s distress. Have you ever prayed about these problems?
I’m also taken aback by your demand for a miracle. Demanding a miracle is testing God, a serious sin. I witness a convincing miracle every time I receive communion. If you’ve failed to discern the Eucharist for what it is, then perhaps you should’ve refrain from receiving it.
I know that the problems in the Church can test US, but we are allowed to be tested by him (Deut 8).
19 March 2009 @ 2:53 pm
In the St. John Chrysostom quote above, insert “hell” for “heaven”.
I should have thought about this last posting. I regret what I said about Communion above. I apologize.
19 March 2009 @ 5:34 pm
I’m not so much demanding a miracle; I’m asking how a miracle is possible in principle. If people have free will, how is prophesy possible if it concerns the actions of a single person? How is it possible for something that is not physically a part of this universe to influence any part of this universe?
To put it another way, if everything I can personally verify that I am told from a particular source is full of crap, why should I believe the really incredible things I am told by the same source? When a science reporter says that someone has “created life in a test tube,” I know with absolute certainty that they are talking about something a great deal less momentous. (I got into an argument with a supervisor at Giant once over just this point.)
So I’m told that the world was made in 6 days, when there is an awful lot of evidence that that just isn’t so. I’m told that some guy was swallowed by a whale and lived to tell about it, I’m told that dead people rise, the sun stops in the sky, and all the rest.
What do I actually know? I know that charlatans and fakes can make gullible people believe things like those. I know that there are legendary characters whose real exploits quickly get an unbelievable patina of superhuman feats.
And I’m told that to question any of it is wicked. That the only way to be sure is by faith (which I see as wishful thinking pure and simple).
Sorry, but the emperor has no clothes.
19 March 2009 @ 5:50 pm
John,
Although I addressed the post to John, I meant to address it to Greg.
I don’t expect you to demand or even believe in miracles, of course.
I posted that entirely too quickly… I regret it from several angles (mistakes, content, tone), but think I made some good points, addressed to Greg, not you.
I believed like you do, then, I changed my mind. I’m taught that Faith is a gift from God, so I completely understand where you are coming from because I lacked faith once.
19 March 2009 @ 7:24 pm
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for daily verified & vetted reporting on the USCCB (Unremoved Sexual Criminal Cabal Bishops) & the Roman “La Cosa Nostra” Curia.
“STOP DONATING LAITY!” as St. Peter Damien correctly asserted!
50% True? Try 99% True!
Fiat Lux & Veritas!
Albino Luciani,
MURDEREDPOPE,
Not Smiling, Fom Heaven
19 March 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Jordan,
The point of a miracle is that it shows God’s involvement.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that someone has reviewed every possible argument for the Christian faith and comes away from it all impressed but not convinced. What is there left? Only miracles.
Greg
19 March 2009 @ 8:33 pm
It will indeed be a” MIRACLE ” if the highly criminally complicit, complacent, and utterly CORRUPT “La Cosa Nostra” Curia , who are perpetrators, enablers and pedo aid & abettors also, are vaporized from this EARTH, to HELL where they belong, for their decades of SATANIC conduct, that is daily documented at: http://www.bishop-acountability.org/abusetracker.
Unti such a MIRACLE, “STOP DONATING LAITY” as St. Peter Damien cofrrect asserted.
It is a MORTAL SIN to donate even one penny to this overt, pervasive, global pedo cult.
FIAT LUX & VERITAS!
Albino Luciani,
MURDERED POPE
19 March 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Greg,
The gift of faith is a miracle in itself and perhaps the one necessary miracle that must precede any other.
Remember the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Rich Man asked for a Miracle that his brothers might be warned and saved from his fate. Abraham told them that his brothers have Moses and the prophets and that’s enough. If his brothers wouldn’t listen to Moses and the Prophets, even one raised from the dead would be of no avail.
Recall also how Christ himself couldn’t perform many miracles where faith was lacking. (Mark 6)
Are you sure that a Miracle would be enough? Are you really aware of the extent to which you can rationalize or dismiss a miracle, should you witness one? Have there been Miracles in your own life that you’ve discounted?
Jordan
20 March 2009 @ 10:27 am
Greg, I’m staying out of this for reasons that are probably obvious enough to you, but I must say that while I never really thought much of the R. Catholic arguments against contraception (while being pretty big on the idea that marriage must rightly be open to children) I really think that your argument about “defeating the purpose” clinches it in a way I hadn’t thought of before. There are a MILLION uses of natural things that we partake of constantly that defeat the normal created end result, for good and legitimate reasons. Or does no one in the Vatican eat fruit?
20 March 2009 @ 10:43 am
Jane — Obviously I agree with you, since you’re agreeing with my argument, but the one counter-argument I’ve heard that at least begins to show why this might be an exception is that fruit and treadmills and diet sodas and things don’t involve the creation of a human life. IOW, when we’re dealing with the creation of a human life, other rules may apply.
Okay. That might be. But it’s still just a gratuitous assertion.
I tend to reason by analogy. If A is true — and I can’t really test A very well — but A implies B — and I can test B — then I’m going to evaluate the truth of A by my test of B.
In this case what the Vatican wants us to believe is that A is true, and there is no B to test it against. A is simply true on its own. I don’t see any reason to accept that.
Now somebody’s going to object that there is the old “primary purpose” natural law bosh, but that doesn’t get very far either.
20 March 2009 @ 11:10 am
Pentamom,
Excuse me? How is eating fruit against its natural purpose? Fruit is attractive to be eaten by animals EXACTLY so it will be picked and the seeds spread over a large area.
Concerning the normal created end result of things. We are given the entire earth to have dominion over and to use for our purposes. We are not given our bodies to use for whatever purpose pleases us.
I’ll appeal to the consequences of belief here and give you a scenario. If we could use our bodies for any use that pleases us, then we could just grow replacement humans for spare parts in bottles.
Check out the predictions in Humanae Vitae sometime. Pope Paul VI was exactly right what would happen in society if contraception were widely available.
20 March 2009 @ 11:22 am
JH, excuse me if I’m missing something, but if I eat a fruit, the seeds do not get scattered in a way that allows the plant to reproduce itself. Modern sanitation aside, humans can digest many types of seeds to the point where what is excreted is not reproductively viable. The purpose of a fruit is to reproduce the plant; my eating it defeats that purpose in that particular act.
My point is not that you can use the human body for any purpose “you please;” that is a complete non sequitur. My point is that the “mustn’t engage in an act unless you fulfill every created purpose for that act” doesn’t hold up. There remain plenty of reasons why we can’t use the human body for “any purpose we please.”
Not having read Humanae Vitae all the way through, I nonetheless take your point. The question is whether the things that have happened are a result of contraception, or of the sinful attitudes that underlie most uses of contraception. Those things are not identical, and sinful attitudes will result in evil practices even by otherwise lawful means.
20 March 2009 @ 11:39 am
Pentamom,
Your eating fruit does create a market whereby men willfully propagate the fruit-bearing plants. In any case, we can do what we want with fruit.
Now, show me where anyone has said that one “mustn’t engage in an act unless you fulfill every created purpose for that act”. The prohibitions the Church has proclaimed are specific concerning which acts and what their created purposes are.
If we don’t take the Church teaching here, where and why do we draw lines?
But really, it all comes down to the teaching authority of the Church. Either you accept it or you don’t. If you have a good argument against some specific prohibition or commandment, you should prayerfully and with humility take it up within the Church.
20 March 2009 @ 11:44 am
Jordan,
Remember that there are different views of what “taking it up with the church” means. And even within Catholicism there are different views of infallibility and the role of the laity in accepting or rejecting teachings.
Back when I cared about such things, I wrote an essay on the interaction between the Magisterium and the laity that you might find interesting, although I don’t think you’ll like it.
http://www.crowhill.net/journeyman/Vol1No3/dulles.html
20 March 2009 @ 11:51 am
Greg, an important point about the non-nutriutious food and non-locomotive exercise, is that the Church has never really spoken on the matter. So it’s not a case where the Church says something inconsistent, but because the other matters don’t involve the creation of life, the Church hasn’t thought is as important to speak definitively on the matter.
Personally, I happen to think that it is unwise to try and over-eat by eating diet food and it’s a much more sustainable model to exercise in ways that are far more “locomotive”. I know I much better stick to me exercise goals when I do things that make me have a more active lifestyle than deciding to go to the gym 3 times a week.
I really think that if we apply the principles of the humanae Vitae to other aspects of our lives, it benefits us as well.
Finally, the nature of the “normal” sin affects the nature of the “disassociative” sin. Sex outside the bounds of marriage is a mortal sin. Stuffing one’s self at dinner too often can be sinful too, but it is not of the magnitude of sex outside of marriage. As such, the importance of the Church determining the danger of “disassociative” sex versus “disassociative” eating is of far higher moral importance.
20 March 2009 @ 11:58 am
Ken,
I once said in a debate with a Catholic that I’d take his arguments about “primary purposes” a little more seriously if he had a beard.
(By way of background, some argue against contraception by saying that it’s immoral to do a thing and at the same time thwart the “primary purpose” of that thing. The “primary purpose” of sex is procreation, so it’s immoral to have sex and thwart babies. I countered — not seriously, but to show how silly the principle is — that the “primary purpose” of a beard is to distinguish the sexes, so it’s immoral to shave.)
Anyway, I get your point that the church has not ruled on diet sodas, so there’s no contradiction between church decrees. Right. There isn’t. There’s a contradiction between church decrees and common sense.
Nobody thinks diet sodas are immoral, but based on the anti-contraception logic they ought to be.
20 March 2009 @ 12:11 pm
“Nobody thinks diet sodas are immoral, but based on the anti-contraception logic they ought to be.”
Greg,
But isn’t this a strawman? The anti-contraception logic you use is not that used by the Church. It’s some extrapolation by some Catholics based on what they believe is Church teaching.
20 March 2009 @ 12:19 pm
I guess it depends on how you take the phrase “the anti-contraception logic.” There is a distinction between what the church has said in defense of the policy — which is very little, with even less justification or explanation — and what Catholics have said in an attempt to make sense of it.
The church has said that it’s immoral to separate the unitive and procreative purposes of sex.
When somebody presents a moral claim, we typically have one of two reactions. If the moral claim seems intuitively obvious (“it’s wrong to beat up nursing babies”) we immediately agree. If the claim seems odd or unusual (“you shouldn’t eat meat sacrificed to idols”) we ask why.
I think it’s obvious that the anti-contraception policy doesn’t evoke automatic and immediate acceptance, and IMO the church has monumentally failed to answer the why.
20 March 2009 @ 12:35 pm
I disagree. Humanae Vitae explains the why quite well.
As Pentamom points out (excuse me if I’m drawing out something you didn’t say, Pentamom), the changes in society might be correlation and not caused by contraception, I think we need to stop and take notice of the predictions made in HV about what would happen with widespread convenient contraception.
20 March 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Greg,
That essay you link to looks very interesting, but I’m afraid I’d want to read Dulles first to understand all the points you’re addressing.
I got a book from Dulles for Christmas on the Magisterium, but I’m ashamed to admit that I’m not sure if it’s this one.
20 March 2009 @ 1:10 pm
“If you have a good argument against some specific prohibition or commandment, you should prayerfully and with humility take it up within the Church.”
Well, not being Roman Catholic that really isn’t my business. And my problem isn’t really with the anti-contraceptive teaching, but with the arguments used to support it that simply, in my mind, don’t add up. If a church of which I will never be a member wishes to impose rules on its members, it’s not really my business, but I do think they ought to be reasonably supported, and I just have never found any of the arguments used to support the blanket prohibition on contraception to add up. I think that is Greg’s point as well.
And as for the point about “correlation,” I’d say it’s a little stronger than mere statistical correlation. Certainly there are things that motivate the widespread use of contraception that contribute to the evils you rightly decry. There is a stronger relationship than correlation, but I think it is more accurately described as widespread contraception and the lack of respect for human life having a common root, than as the mere existence of contraception in any degree and for any purpose, destroying respect for human life.
20 March 2009 @ 5:07 pm
If the “primary purpose” of sex is reproduction, then why does it so often not work? If “nature abhors a vacuum,” then why is there so much of it? Why do we drive on a parkway, and park on a driveway? (IOW, I’m not being particularly serious)
20 March 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Pentamom,
Sorry. Making many bad assumptions recently.
I guess I assumed you were RC in that I can’t recall ever hearing anyone but an RC use the phrase “Marriage must rightly be open to children”.
I agree, the changes in society almost certainly aren’t due solely to contraception. However, I believe it’s part and parcel of the whole. If there hadn’t been convenient contraception, there would have been less of a feedback loop that caused us to be where we are today.
In reflecting on my own life, I’m sure many of my attitudes and practices I was involved in many years ago were negatively influenced by the availability of convenient contraception. I’m sure this helped me treat woman as objects, as a means to an end. Sure, this kind of thing happened before convenient contraception, but it was facilitated by its availability.
Just for me, things would have been very different. I’m sure this experience was lived many times over in the lives of other men.
21 March 2009 @ 9:12 am
If contraception causes sexual promiscuity, how do you explain the rise in teen pregnancies? One of my students recently found out she was pregnant, and has no clue who the father is. That’s a symptom of serious problems, but use of contraception isn’t one of them.
21 March 2009 @ 1:35 pm
John,
Do you think that student didn’t know about the use of contraception, or have easy access to contraception? If anything, the rise of the use of contraception and teen pregnancy (really, I’d like to use the term illegitimacy, because there’s nothing wrong with an 18 year old married woman being pregnant and they often get lumped into statistics) would tend to indicate that contraception is not the solution to the serious problems. You might not conclude that contraception contributes to the serious problems, but I do.
In thinking back on my relationships, I’m sure I would not have had access to willing partners had there not been convenient (and attractive, non-barrier) contraception available. I think I’m not unusual.
Now, it’s true that the partners I sought were dissimilar to your student, but when “everybody’s doing it” the careless are especially vulnerable to negative consequences.
21 March 2009 @ 1:50 pm
John,
It’s not about illegitimacy, but it’s relevant. I just saw tweet on this:
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/03/21/116883/
Money quote:
‘After twenty years as an AIDS prevention activist in Uganda, Martin Ssempa says he has concluded that the real culprit in the spread of the disease “is sexual promiscuity driven by immorality of the heart.’
I think that this Martin Ssempa, working in AIDS prevention in Uganda for 20 years has a great deal of credibility on this subject.
25 March 2009 @ 10:44 am
Allow me to educate a few of you on the processes of the Catholic Church. Before you make accusations you need to be educated on the matter.
Firstly, in the event that a priest, bishop, or the like, are found guilty of a serious crime, they are to be tried under Vatican law. Vatican law states that said clergy, if found guilty, is to be prevented from practicing as a priest. They may even be placed into seclusion (kind of like a form of house arrest but in a location specified by the Vatican council).
Secondly, in any case, the Pope needs the backing of the rest of the Vatican council. A majority of Bishops and Cardinals must back the Pope in order for a particular thing to go through. This results in a very slow, cautious system where a decision can take weeks, months or even years to make, depending on the nature of the situation. Proving or disproving the credit of miracles takes the longest time. One example shoots from the events of 1917 in Fatima, Portugal. It took almost 30 years for the Church to piece everything together and finally state that the visions of Mary (the Mother of Jesus) – as seen by three Sheppard children – and the associated miracles that occurred there were authentic. However, in the mid-term, Mary had requested the conversion of Russia and its consecration to her Immaculate Heart. Mary had foretold the end of World War I, and said that if this did not happen, World War 2 would start. Even though the Pope wanted to follow these requests, the bishops and cardinals did not back him, figuratively tying the Pope’s hands. Roughly 20 years after the visions took place, World War 2 started as predicted by Mary. Scientists to this very day cannot explain what happened in Fatima that day at the Cova. All they can do is postulate, but every one has too many holes.
—————————————————————-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event
—————————————————————-
Anyway, this just shows that the Pope does need backing from others in order to pass something.
Thirdly… regarding contraception and HIV… everybody knows that there is no form of artificial contraception that is 100% effective. Plus, if a girl is clean, men will always have the urge to have sex without a condom. This is part of our nature. The man’s natural purpose of sex is to inseminate the woman in order to get her pregnant. This is an instinct that acts at the subconscious level. Every single heterosexual male wants to see a woman take his sperm during sexual relations, and keep it inside her. Deep down, most men want this to be done at least once for them. Sex is like food. It is needed to sustain us and the human race. But if you don’t eat right and become a glutton or just eat unhealthy food, you’ll become obese and eventually fall sick. The ancient Romans’ method of “contraception for food” was to purge themselves. People who do that these days are called bulimic. Of course this practice has adverse effects on the esophagus and throat. The same goes for sex. What people need to do is change their lifestyles and way of thinking. Just like bulimia, contraception is a double-edged sword. Ever heard of “broken condoms”? On the other hand, if a virgin man and woman were to have sex in a monogamous relationship from the time that they lose there virginity to each other until the day they die (i.e. within marriage), they have next to no risks at all. Plus, if the woman is healthy and gets pregnant, everybody accepts that there is no shame in that situation.
Fourthly… although most physically healthy married Catholic couples are restricted to natural forms of contraception, the Catholic Church does make exceptions for special cases where a married woman’s life would be endangered by conceiving a child. In these special cases, condoms are permitted, but only in these special cases within marriage. People who are given artificial contraception are being intuitively told that it is okay for them to have sex. Well, if they are married, that is truly the case, so giving condoms to married couples with certain health issues would be fine. Generally, healthy married couples technically don’t really Need artificial contraception. And giving contraception to the single population will definitely give rise to the amount of pre-marital sex in the area it is allowed. With or without available contraception, pre-marital sex will lead to illegitimate pregnancies, and give way to an increase in abortions (Just look at England and Wales). Even worse, is the spread of STDs between promiscuous partners. The Church is against both the spread of STDs and abortions, which is why it says that the best way to prevent these things is to practice chastity and abstinence until after marriage. (The general media will always fail to mention this.) If the media can promote proper natural lifestyle changes without the need for artificial aids, why can’t we do the same thing with sex? Two words…. Control Yourself! That is what you need to do.
Finally, the Church is a human institution that is only guided by God. We all have free will, and there is bound to be a small number of bad apples in the apple tree. The same can be said of other institutions (example: Police, Schools, Governments, and etcetera). Generally, there are more good priests than bad ones. The same goes for other institutions. Even the justice systems of the U.S.A. and Canada will try to reform convicted criminals and place them back into society. It is the same for the Church, but it is handled differently. The solution is not to bash the institution and pull people away from it, but rather focus on the institution’s teachings. Even Jesus said, when speaking about the religious leaders of his time, “Do as they say, but do not do as they do.”
There are times in history where the Church has faced reform, and it has improved for the better over the centuries. (Mind you that the basic teachings of Jesus remain the same.) However, this process is extremely slow, and can take decades to reach fruition. (We all know the old saying “Patience is a virtue”.) In the mean time, we will just have to be patient.
25 March 2009 @ 11:32 am
A small note on what is happening in Africa. In this case, contraception is definitely not the solution.
—————————————————————-
“An international consensus has emerged that violence and degradation of women and girls are key factors in the rapid spread of HIV among them.” – The Washington Post
—————————————————————-
In Africa, the main problem is the mentality of African men. They do not treat their women as human, but as objects with which they can do whatever they like.
—————————————————————-
“Medical experts have shown a clear association between HIV exposure and coerced sex. Wives who suffer violence if they request condom use or faithfulness are at higher risk of AIDS than unmarried women and girls. That is why defeating the AIDS pandemic requires a second radical proposition: that African women and girls have the right to protection under their own countries’ laws.” – The Washington Post
—————————————————————-
This is a problem that I know exists in the most heinous form ever. Though rape is illegal in most of Africa, it is treated by the general male population as something that is of the norm; almost as if it was legal. I know this because of an account one of my father’s friends told me and my family. While he was doing volunteer work at an African university, one of the professors took him on a tour of the campus grounds. As they passed the girls’ dorm, they heard female screams coming from said building. My father’s friend asked what was going on; to which his guide calmly replied “Oh, it is just the boys raping the girls”. Apparently this is something that happened quite regularly every now and then. Groups of male students from the boys’ dorm would enter the girls’ dorm and randomly rape whatever female students they liked. To add to the matter, nobody cared! Of course, many promiscuous men carry HIV and transmit it to whatever woman they have sex with. HIV transmitted during rape is a much higher risk than during mutually consented sex. So in this case, the Pope was extremely correct. Contraception is not the answer. To stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, the mentality and behaviour of African men must change, and women must have better protection under African law.
4 January 2010 @ 2:52 pm
[...] #4 — If half of this is true, how is it possible to take the Catholic Church seriously? [...]