Once again, Catholics find themselves faced with the hypocrisy of their religious leaders as more evidence of pedophilia among the Catholic clergy runs rampant. Of course, hypocrisy in religion has never been in short supply: history is replete with patent examples. An overwhelming contradiction exists amid opposing abortion while simultaneously protecting pedophiles. I am mystified that so many people are so thunderstruck by these most recent examples. It seems more apt to consider these examples as run of the mill.
There are various violations taking place when priests sexually assault children. Not only are the rights of the children being violated, clearly the most extreme violation, but also trust (the trust of parishioners), central societal values, and the protections that society allows for such religious organizations, which are, frankly, unique and exceptionally misplaced protections. Interestingly enough, trust is a major facet of religious faith. It is curious that so many can defend an institution that clearly violates that trust and virtually every tenet it preaches through its actions.
And the legal offenses alone are multifaceted.
Knowingly facilitating further abuse and harboring the criminals who are committing these crimes makes the Catholic Church an accomplice in every assault that results from their protection of these pedophiles. There is also the consideration of obstructing investigations and concealing evidence. These are crimes for which average individual citizens are regularly prosecuted and convicted. Why are Church leaders judged differently and why is that disparity tolerated?
Why are these legal offenses excused? We saw what happened in Waco. We saw, more recently, what happened with the polygamist Zion Ranch. Why is the Catholic Church treated differently? The Catholic Church has far greater financial power, as well as far more patrons, and therefore it poses a far greater societal threat than either of those two smaller cults. I ask, if half-glibly, “When are authorities going to initiate raids on these MAJOR cults?”
The idea that legal prosecution is the correct approach is gaining traction. In an Associated Press article, Pope’s immunity may be challenged in Britain, we read that the possible prosecution of the Pope is now being seriously considered among legal scholars in Britain. In another article, Pope dismisses ‘petty gossip’ of sexual abuse allegations, which concerns the case of one particular priest in Germany, we read;
Faith in God, he said, led "towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion".
Benedict came under attack after it was revealed that he had been involved in dealing with two cases of abuse. In the first a German priest in therapy for paedophilia returned to work with children while the pope was archbishop of Munich. In the second, in the late 1990s when Benedict was a senior Vatican figure, his deputy stopped a church trial against a Wisconsin priest accused of abusing deaf boys.
"If this priest is convicted, I plan to press charges against the bishop for aiding and abetting," said Nino Marazzita, a lawyer and anti-paedophilia campaigner.
That the Pope would so visibly and effortlessly dismiss this as “petty gossip” in the face of overwhelming evidence is beyond offensive, and his words unequivocally reveal the contempt and malice with which he holds his followers and the rest of society in general.
The primary prosecutorial question being debated in Britain concerns the pope’s status as a “head of state” and whether the Vatican is legitimately a “state” rather than “a construct of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini”. The A.P. article poses the question; “Then again, no other top religious leaders enjoy the same U.N. privileges or immunity, so why should the pope?” Indeed, I ask why anyone should be immune from laws.
CATHOLIC CORPORATISM; Churches Too Big to Fail
Religions/cults are primarily corporations, corporations are primarily religions/cults, and each advocates a particular dogma with religious fervor, both with shareholders, profiteers and criminals lurking behind the protections awarded them by society. Society tolerates and is exploited by both entities, at least in part, because of indoctrination – brainwashing – at an early age that creates difficulty in thinking about these entities without prejudice. Each of the two pairs of questions below contains two questions that are fundamentally interchangeable.
Should religions/cults be tax-exempt? Should corporations be tax-exempt?
Does religion truly create morality? Does a corporation create morality?
Sociopathy – clearly the dominant trait of corporations – is a trait of religious organizations, as well. In effect, religious organizations – like the Catholic Church – are essentially self-serving legal political establishments awarded the same kinds of legal protections and exhibiting the same sociopathic tendencies as corporations, which are also legal political establishments, and both establishments consider themselves distinct from, and over and above, the rest of society. This kind of self-aggrandizement is also a symptom of sociopaths. Regarding this dysfunction, there is no cure. Sociopaths, when recognized, must be segregated from the main body of society because they experience no remorse for their abuses against others and often blame others for their own actions. Consider the following quotes:
As fresh allegations mounted against clergy in Austria, adding to hundreds of cases in Germany and the Netherlands, Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone acknowledged that confidence in the Church had declined.
“There has been a reduction in faith in all institutions including the Church,” said Bertone, number two in the Vatican hierarchy, after meeting Italian business leaders.
“The Church still enjoys great confidence on the part of the faithful, it is just that someone is trying to undermine that," he said, without referring directly to the pedophilia scandal. “But the Church has special help, from above.”
Regarding loss of faith in the Church, Señor Bertone places blame on someone other than Church leaders; he needn’t concern himself with naming the actor in his theory, “…it is just that someone is trying to undermine that”; truth has always been effective at undermining that faith. Unfortunately, the willfully ignorant are never in short supply.
Of course, the currently accepted manner of confronting Mr. Corporation’s sociopathy is to pay him to continue his abuse by saying he’s “too big to fail.” Should we expect the announcement soon from the Obama Administration that the Catholic Church is “too big to fail” and that taxpayers now must bail it out of its self-imposed downfall, so that its CEOs can continue unfettered with the status quo? Or perhaps we should adopt the “put-it-behind-us-and-forget-about-it” solution that Obama advocates for coping with and managing the Bush/Cheney regime’s criminal acts and which the Church employs ad infinitum. “Special help from above,” could have more than one meaning.
The separation of church and state does not extend the privilege of protection to churches/corporations for the purposes of abusing citizens or society without liability. Churches are not “The House of God”, corporations are not individuals, and religions are not the origin of morality; civil society cannot exist on a foundation of such delusions, especially when the proponents and beneficiaries of these delusions are in positions of having most influence. Both institutions – religions and corporations – are human constructs designed for purposes that in due course predictably disrespect, debase, offend, exploit, and abuse humanity. Society should not serve either of these masters.
Why are these legal offenses excused? While so many are pondering how a conscience can allow the Catholic clergy at large to do what they have done, perhaps the more important question underlying these crimes is precisely that: “Why are these legal offenses excused?” Indeed, why are these offenses excused on any level, legal or otherwise? The question is not disingenuous; it is authentic, ethical and fair, as are the comparisons above. We ponder why sociopaths do what they do, but we do not tolerate their known presence among us; we lock them away to ensure our safety from their actions.
Religious cults do not bring morality into being, they do not compose our moral soundscape anymore than a sonic vacuum composes a symphony, and brand name cults like Christianity that purport to do so do not rate special protections from the societal ramifications of their moral, ethical, and legal offenses against society and against humanity.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
there are very few politicians who can afford to throw away 10% of their votes by attacking the catholic church. it's useless to expect them to do it, they don't commit professional suicide unless forced to.
there is no way to force them. however, a society with citizen initiative, a functioning democracy, can take measures that are impossible for politicians.
so i urge getting democracy as the first step in enjoying the benefits of democracy.
Yeah, I get you. And I think the idea of writing a new constitution is going to gain traction, although, perhaps in our lifetimes. There has been, it seems to me, more scholarly consideration of doing just that in recent years and I suspect it will continue to pick up as more time goes by.
However, my aim is the general public. It's intriguing that in other countries something like this can be openly debated, but here, in America, it would be, as you say, political suicide. I'm not sure even true democracy could curb that tendency.
But that's central to the teaching. Faith is not about proof. It's not about seeking proof. It's about ignoring proof. It's about accepting something in the face of paradox, challenge, disproof, etc. Quite a useful and calming notion in some cases—especially where the odds are against one and it seems impossible to have an effect, and one wants to cling to a bit of personal dignity. Quite a dangerous thing in other circumstances, when there is someone endangering or taking advantage of others. Sadly, power abhors a vacuum, so while the former situation might come up from time to time, the latter situation is likely to always show its ugly face, or at least its ugly hand (“absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and all that).
Regarding the too big to fail thing, do you have references on what the cost of this is being as a fraction of the Church's wealth? I thought they had, well, more money than God, but I admit I did not track that down, it was just an impression. It might be that they have the wealth but just don't want to give it up. That might be taken to be a confirmation of item 1 in the diagnostic criteria (“Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.”)
Speaking of too big to fail, though, I have to ask: If the Church is possessed of great wealth, and people are going through great trouble with recent economic troubles, why is the Church not voluntarily yielding some of that to help?
Someone I know was going through economic hassle at one point, and I recall noting they were still tithed to the church. Why are you paying them money right now while you're not breaking even? I asked. (For discussion of a related topic, see my article Tax Policy and the Dewey Decimal System.) The response was that the money was for the needy. What a great theory: Get money from people on the theory it will help the needy, but don't give it to them when they turn out to be needy.
You write, “But that's central to the teaching.” But violating the trust violates other teaching they espouse. “Faith is one thing; blind, willful ignorance and denial becomes something quite different. Should I call it “bliss”? That is part of what you refer to, I believe.
As for sociopathy, or anti-social personality disorder (ASPD), I love that you focused on that. Heh, when it comes to social norms, all sociopaths think they can and should “dispense them”, and regardless of social norms, sociopaths follow their own rules, as does the Church.
But, it’s not a hard case to make at all; it requires 3 or more of the 7 diagnostic criteria – the Church easily fullfils 5 of the 7 listed, including the one you mention, which actually falls under a slightly different diagnosis.
;~)
The “too big to fail” thing was largely tongue-in-cheek, me being provacateur for a moment. You further comments about this point just further demonstrate the hypocrisy and sociopathic tendencies of the Church.
I appreciated your contributions, humorous and otherwise.
Concise, to the point, factual.
I've been baffled by the defenses used. Hey, other religions do it, society does it, we're just like everybody else (that should be removed from society).
Pre-meditated pedophilia perpetrated by people you trust, covered-up by your accomplices (your bosses)? Sickens me. It's a blight on humanity.
Sociopathy – clearly the dominant trait of corporations – is a trait of religious organizations, as well. In effect, religious organizations – like the Catholic Church – are essentially self-serving legal political establishments awarded the same kinds of legal protections and exhibiting the same sociopathic tendencies as corporations, which are also legal political establishments, and both establishments consider themselves distinct from, and over and above, the rest of society. This kind of self-aggrandizement is also a symptom of sociopaths. Regarding this dysfunction, there is no cure. Sociopaths, when recognized, must be segregated from the main body of society because they experience no remorse for their abuses against others and often blame others for their own actions.
I'm gonna post this in my comment section... I hope you don't mind.
I’m not sure exactly what you object to in my wording, but I’ll stand by what I’ve said. I’ve focused on the events at hand appropriately, and I’ve inductively expanded some of the principles at work in those events to the general state of how society deals with religion in an unrealistic manner (seems appropriate for something that is unrealistic, I guess), which is part of why religion is such a societal detriment generally.
You write, “…guilt does not attach in this case to organized religion generally …”
I disagree; it just depends on which guilt. You appear focused only on the sex abuse; I’m looking at a bigger picture.
While the current scandal appears in the media as exclusive to Catholicism, society grants special privileges and respect to organized religion in general while demonizing smaller religious entities that they call cults and sects, and this is what I have generalized. All religions started out as cults and sects, and the distinction that is drawn today (cult versus religion) is a delusional perspective of religion; all religion. The power and special treatment afforded these political organizations (corporations and religions) can lead to nothing but abuse of those who refuse to recognize them for what they are.
jay
Thanks; no higher compliment than to have somebody WANT something I’ve written. I’m glad it spoke to you.
I'm glad that at the very least, this very basic connection is being made and that the Church has agreed to refer criminal priests to the police. I know this is Captain Obvious stuff, but it's good to know.
There is simply no rational explanation for why society puts up with this from these organizations, especially the Catholic Church, when other cults are treated SO differently; consistency in viewing these entities would help, but we get lots of practice viewing some entities as “more equal” than others. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, etc, are prime examples. And then there are the corporations of America.
Thanks for commenting; I did not know you had attended a Catholic school. My wife did, too, but she was/is not religious at all, except perhaps in her defense of animals ;~)--- she just went there because it was close to home and more prestigious than some of her other options.
Thanks for coming over and contributing to the conversation. I understand your being “punch-drunk”; I’m a little punch drunk, myself, on this topic, and I haven’t dealt with it as much as you have. And I agree with your perspective that this problem exists in other venues, too. I also acknowledge that those who try to paint ALL Catholics as pedophiles are propagandizing.
But I think you have misread me on the abortion/pedophile point, perhaps because I did not explain thoroughly enough. I merely offered that as one example of the hypocrisy of ALL religion, not just Catholicism. I wrote, “hypocrisy in religion has never been in short supply”. The abortion issue fits with many religious hypocrites. So, I don’t think your assertion that I “reduce the Catholic Church to ‘anti abortion’ and pedophelia” holds up under scrutiny.
And when someone proposes that the Catholic Church does NOT represent a SPECIAL case in this issue, that person is also seemingly propagandizing, because the specifics that the Church’s presence in the matter require be addressed, also demand that it be seen as different, unique, and this was also a major point in my essay. No other religious leader in the world has the U.N. status as a “head of state”, even though he isn’t really a head of state. The overwhelming wealth of this organization is another clear distinction that sets it apart.
You point out that, “No one is excusing the legal offenses”. The point you miss is that it is only NOW, in relatively recent times, that that is the case; up to the point where society started calling them out on it, they had been.
The outcries of “Catholic-bashing” are the exaggeration or misrepresentation, not those who are calling for reducing these religious leaders to regular citizens answerable to the same laws as everyone else, but also, and this was a major point in my essay, reduced to who and what they are; normal people like the rest of us. not worthy of the exceptional and misplaced protections and social status they are afforded by those whom they abuse and clearly hold with contempt as being beneath them.
You point out the large sums of money involved:
“Catholics have paid out 3 billion in damages and many are serving in prison”.
An important point there is that not all of that money was “damages” but much was in the form of hush-money. Pay off the victims, ship the offenders off to new unsuspecting victims, and carry on, business as usual. Going back to why this is a unique situation, I would ask, “How many child abusers can afford to pay that much money to stay out of jail?”
I’m thinking that while we can agree that the child abuse situation exists in many other circumstances, we should also be able to rationally recognize that there are certain exigent conditions presented in the uniqueness of having the Church involved in these scandals.
I recently read an essay by Sam Harris in which he talks about trying to stay out of the most recent Catholic sex scandal, but, then, goes on to talk about much the same as I've written here.
Things have simply gone too far with religion and its apologists. If society is to ever move beyond the shadow of religious ignorance, then society must start relegating religion to its proper stature. If people want to believe it, they can't be stopped, but we have to stop affording it special treatment because it simply does not deserve special treatment. In this day and age, how do people STILL believe that it does?!!!!