The Catholic Scapegoat

This isn't a topic I rather enjoy writing about, but it is still an important issue.

The Catholic Church has achieved notoriety as an institution which has covered up child abuse, passed around abusive priests, and cared more about protecting its reputation than protecting its children. Supposedly it was caused by the particularly secretive Catholic hierarchy and the fiendish practice of celibacy.

I had to deal with these accusations while I was considering entry into the Church, and I found that with a proper look at the real facts, and not the media hype, we see that this problem isn't what the media makes it out to be.

As Catholics, we need to care most about what we are doing to protect our children, and what we can do to avoid repeating our sins in the future. On the other hand, if we are over-cautious, we can end up killing our ability to interact with our Catholic family, and to act as Christians at all, due to our suffocating paranoia.

But we must also recognize that we are not alone in our sins. Our Church does not face these troubles because she is Catholic (with perverting doctrines). No. She faces them because she is comprised of humans. We can see the truth of this if we look at the stories, few and far between as they may be, that show the truth about other institutions. This truth, which mostly seems to escape the media, also escapes legislators, who even now, are still creating legislation that unfairly targets Catholic schools, while leaving public schools alone.

Though I've read the same thing in many media outlets, I will presently quote a statement by the Catholic League's Bill Donohue:

“In 2007, the AP did a major report on this subject. It concluded that child sexual abuse in the public schools was ‘a widespread problem,’ saying there was ‘a deeply entrenched resistance toward recognizing and fighting abuse.’ Moreover, offending teachers are moved from one school district to another, so often that they are called ‘mobile molesters.’

“Two years earlier, author and educator John Seryak concluded that ‘The problem in education dwarfs the Catholic Church problem.’ And a year earlier, Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, the nation’s leading authority on the issue, estimated that ‘the physical abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse of priests.’ So common is the transfer of offending teachers that it is called ‘passing the trash.’

We can clearly see in these, and other accounts, that school administrators acted exactly the same as Catholic administrators (Bishops) by transferring offenders, except that Catholic Bishops did at least try sending many of the abusers to counseling. Note that this was before we realized how ineffective counseling tends to be in these situations. We also see that school teachers are just as likely as our clergy (supposedly corrupted by celibacy) to commit abuse.

I am happy for the probing into the Church. Fine, tear us open, help us to be free from our dark secrets, but don't ignore the problem everywhere else it appears. Tear open public schools, other churches, and any other organizations which have hidden similar crimes.

While this does not, and never could, excuse us from our own failings, it does raise a serious question about the media. Are they really so interested in saving children, or are they really just out to crush the Catholic Church?

When the Catholic Church is the one group which stands most firmly against the culture of death, and the media is the not-so-subtle propaganda arm of the culture of death, I'm not sure we have to wonder.

The Hierarchical Principle

For me, in coming from a Protestant position, one principle unlocked a great deal of the challenges presented by Catholicism. I'm not sure if it has a name, but I will call it "The Hierarchical Principle."

For me, unlocking this principle was key to understanding many things:

Why do Catholics have a Pope and Bishops?
What's with the Marian dogmas?
Why the Praying to Saints?
Why call priests "Father?"
Why have priests?

You see, Protestants tend to simplify things. This makes Protestant doctrine easy to understand and quick to learn (at least the basics). As far as hierarchies go, they like it simple: "There's God, then beneath that is us, then there's the rest of Creation." [Note: I may be leaving out a few levels on both sides, but I think you'll get the point] Catholics see these major levels as well, but we also see levels within each of those categories. A Protestant insists that Jesus has given him direct contact with God. A Catholic agrees, but he also sees the purpose in having contact with everyone on the levels between ourselves and God. Thus, a Catholic may praise Mary as being his superior, but a Protestant, only seeing God as his superior sees this as idolatry.

To sum up the principle, I would first relate a common Catholic statement, "Protestants see things as either/or, where Catholics see things as both/and." This is used for Faith and Works, Scripture and Tradition, prayers to God and Mary, etc.

But for some of these things a hierarchical model is more appropriate: "Catholics see some things as both/and-to-a-lesser-extent." Catholics honor God, and because of God they honor Mary. Catholics believe in the ultimate authority of God, and in the subservient authority of the Bishops.

To help explain how this plays out further, let's see how the principle works with Church Authority: In the Gospels Jesus said, "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you [Jn 20:21]," to the Apostles. He also gives a special higher authority to Peter [Matt 16]. Then, after this, the Apostles ordain Bishops to succeed them. This creates a structure something like the following:

God the Father>Jesus>Peter>Apostles>Bishops>Presbyters & Deacons>Laity

Then, after the deaths of the Apostles, and after some clarification on the roles of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons we ended up with the modern structure:

God the Father>Jesus>Pope>Bishops>Priests>Deacons>Laity (divided futher: Parents>Children)

In observing this structure we recognize that each is due honor according to his office. Having an authority other than God does not conflict with God's authority because 1) Its authority is God-given, 2) We recognize that God's authority is higher, and thus, 3) Divine commands outweigh the commands of Bishops etc.

We can look at a similar hierarchy of physical fatherhood:

God, the Ultimate Father>our Ancestors>our Biological Father>Us>our Children

Or in all created and uncreated things:

God>Angels>Man>Animals>Plants>Inanimate Objects

God alone is worthy of all glory and praise, and is the source of all holiness and the ultimate recipient of all praise for holiness. But because God exhibits his holiness through the lives of his saints, we still see a hierarchy of holiness extending down to created beings, for which we give honor and praise:

God>Mary>the Saints in Heaven>the saints on Earth

Understanding that this is the way God works, both in nature and in religion, is a great key to understanding Catholicism. Understanding this, we realize it is not only acceptable to honor Mary, or to honor our father and mother, but it is indeed right, and is God's will. God enjoys sharing his things with his creation, he shares his love, his authority, his supernatural gifts, and even his praise. We are just required to make sure that the greatest honor is given to God.

For one, this would mean that if our priest tells us to do something which we well know to be contrary to God's law, we must object. We must also avoid trying to play people lower on the hierarchy against God, like we would if we said something silly like, "Mary, God has not helped me in my efforts as a thief, but you are far kinder, so please help me steal a car." That would be idolatrous, insulting to God's loving nature, and gravely sinful.

To Nullify Scripture

In the most absurd statement yet, ChristianAnswers.net declares that, "The Roman Catholic faith has shown a willingness to raise the pope above Jesus Christ and the Bible by giving him the right to nullify Scripture through papal decrees."

I can see that they would feel compelled to believe that this is true in order to maintain their own Protestant positions, but it is a false accusation. The Church has no power to nullify scripture. It would be absurd to claim such a power when it is the Church herself who declared the scriptures to be infallible.

They then state, "The conscience of the biblical Protestant (like that of Martin Luther) is bound by the Bible alone." I found this humorous, as Luther is a perfect example of someone who gave himself the power to "nullify scripture." Indeed he nullified several whole books. He also changed the meaning of scripture by inserting words (like the "alone" part of "faith alone") in the text itself and adding commentary in the margins.

"Christian Answers"

I stumbled across a website called "Christian Answers.net."

I can agree with a lot of what I've read on the site so far (not that I've read much), but there are some oddities, which is why I'd recommend reading Catholic sites instead. Here are some of the problems I ran into on their "Aren't all religions the same?" page:

I found this statement strange: "Actually, true Christianity is not a religion, but a person, Jesus Christ." I'm not sure this makes any sense. According to Peter Kreeft, the three aspects of all religions are "creed, code, and cult" or "theology, morality, and liturgy." Now, Christianity can be summed up as "Our relationship with Christ" [see The Relationship], but these three aspects are a part of that relationship. Also, Judaism, Islam, and other religions can sum themselves up as "Our relationship with God (or the gods)." This means that Christianity, unique as it may be, is a religion. Now is Christianity Jesus Christ? Is my marriage the same thing as my wife? That's a silly question. They are confusing the person of Jesus Christ with the abstract concept that is Christianity.

Really, this is just another group trying to convince those folks who say, "I like faith, but not organized religion," that Christianity isn't what they think it is. But saying that Christianity is not a religion is either ignorant, or worse, deceptive.

Another strange thing they did was this: first, they identified themselves as being "Orthodox Christian" at one point when comparing the Christian versus the Jewish views of Jesus. Then they claimed that "Christianity" believes in "the Bible alone" while Roman Catholicism (notice, this is something different from "Christianity," and they lump it in with Mormonism and Christian Science) believes in "the Bible plus."

While I can concede that Catholicism does rely on "the Bible plus," I obviously cannot agree that this means we are not Christians. In fact, this accusation would also apply to the unmentioned Eastern Orthodox churches. This puts the writer in an odd (but not uncommon) position of arguing that the two oldest, and most traditional, branches of Christianity are not orthodox, despite their strict adherence to the early Christian creeds which define the central tenets of Christian orthodoxy.

Further, I would argue that while we are "Bible plus" Christians, we are still "God's Word alone" Christians. This being the true barometer for the fullness of the faith, we are left noting that these Protestant Christians are indeed relying on "God's Word minus," and they are even relying on "the Bible minus" since they have removed certain books from the traditional canon, and since they interpret away verses that contradict the "pluses" they themselves have added, these being the very concept in question, sola scriptura, and its brother, sola fide, along with their popular cousin, "disagree with everything the Pope says if at all possible."

Bill Clinton on Embryos

God, deliver us from politicians!



Yes, you heard him. Bill Clinton thinks it's wrong to destroy an embryo "if" there's a chance that it might one day be fertilized...

In case you missed the key word there, answer this question: What kind of embryo isn't fertilized?

I don't even think this needs comment (Feel free to comment).

For more about stem cell research I recommend reading this list of treatments that have resulted from adult stem cells.

Christian Insults

Today I was pointed to a discussion about Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show.

I won't relate to you the story on that, since you can just click on the link above. What I'm more interested in at the moment is part of the discussion in the comments below the story.

One person called Obama a "stumblebum." Another person chastised her, and said she was being "unChristian." This immediately brought to mind a chapter of the Bible. I commented (with a few more typos) as follows:

I have to laugh at the idea that calling a man who supports evils like abortion a “stumblebum” is a terribly unChristian thing to do.

Let me quote someone who once addressed leaders who were not fulfilling their duties:

“You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” [Matthew 23:27]

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” [Matt 23:33]

Ah Jesus, worst Christian ever…

(Not that I’m saying we should be be eager to be insulting, but we also might not want to react too harshly when someone is insulting in an appropriate context.)

I was afterwards rebuked and told there is no appropriate context for insults, unless you are Jesus, and thus the judge of men. This is certainly a strong point, but I'm not sure I fully agree with it.

In this blog's comments I list some quotes from Saints calling people things like, "beasts,", "fools," and, "mad women." I think that examples like these are fairly uncommon, but they still show that there may indeed be an appropriate context. It seems to me that such insulting language is reserved for those who are clearly and objectively transgressing the moral law and leading others to do the same.

March 21 edit: I think I've found a missing piece of the puzzle. These insults are mostly intended to instruct the listener, to impress upon them the gravity of the crimes of the insulted party, so that the listeners do not follow their example.

St. Patrick's Day

I forgot that today was St. Patrick's day until one of my co-workers mentioned it.

This is strange, since St. Patrick is one of my favorite Saints, my co-worker isn't Catholic, I'm at least a quarter Irish, and I even spent some time last night thinking about buying a St. Patrick statue. But I guess there's a difference between loving someone and remembering days associated with that person, as many forgetful men can probably attest.

I realized, this morning (after my co-worker reminded me what day it was), how much I owe to St. Patrick, and how glad I am that God's grace motivated him to do such great things. His immense accomplishment, converting all of Ireland to a zealous Catholic faith, is amazing, and has had a great impact on my life.

My faith comes from two paths. I first learned to be a Christian through my father. He is a good Protestant pastor. As I received my faith from him, he received it from his father. His father was born an Irish Catholic, but he left the Church to marry my grandmother. Still, his faith in Christ was first given to him by the Irish, who owe their faith to St. Patrick.

But it took a second Irish family, my wife's family, to lead me fully into the Church. Without the influence of my wife and her sister I'm not sure that there would have been much chance for me, the pastor's son, to become Catholic. So, to St. Patrick and the faithful of Ireland, I am doubly indebted.

I delight in knowing that Christ's work on Earth did not end when he ascended into heaven, that his story is not just the one in the Bible. Christ's life story continues, and it can be seen in the good that is done by his Saints. How thankful I am that Christ, through St. Patrick, evangelized Ireland.

Pope vs. Condoms in Africa

As happens every time I can remember, the media has once again sided against the Catholic Church. Now, as the Pope visits Africa, they are attacking his stance on condom use in the fight against AIDS/HIV.

Here's a portion of the story I saw on PBS:

Pope Claims Condoms Worsen AIDS Crisis

The interviewer's slant isn't that strong in this particular segment. The part this page doesn't show is that much more time was spent hearing from some restaurant that distributes condoms in another African country.

The first comment on the story read in part:

"As leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope has a moral duty and obligation to ensure followers are educated and lives are saved from HIV infections and AIDS deaths! Around the world, condoms are seen as a necessary requirement for engaging in sexual activity. Promoting condom use has not and does not promote promiscuity... The Catholic Church is promoting practices of abstinence and fidelity, which are widely known to have a high failure rate and allow more HIV infections!"
-Bradford McIntyre

My response follows:

The Pope has a moral duty to do what he is doing. He is teaching the consistent teaching of the Church. It has taught this for nearly 2000 years.

It is certainly a hard teaching to understand, and a hard one to follow, but that does not make it a false teaching.

People should not be so quick to judge the very institution that has passed on the fundamental idea, taught by Jesus Christ, that every human life has value. Without this idea, which has been implanted in the heart of Western society by its Christian past, we would not care at all about the fate of the Africans.

But, sadly, we have rejected so many other teachings of Jesus, and only the Pope continues to teach them clearly.

The Pope certainly would not deny that condoms can prevent AIDS infections. The problem is that they often fail, and they also contribute to a general promiscuous culture which really only makes the problem worse in the long term.

They are certainly not the only factor, and may not even be the primary factor, which is why abstinence education can not stand on its own. It needs to be a part of a far more comprehensive solution.

The other commenter was right, to an extent, that condoms themselves don't cause promiscuity, but he is wrong in thinking that they do not contribute to promiscuity. They are just one of many contributing factors, and we need to address them all to see real success, but success can not be found by abandoning our morals.

Mormon Visitors

My friend recently invited some Mormon missionaries (who probably ambushed him) over to give us "lessons." This was something I'd been kind of waiting for since I moved to this Mormon filled region of the world, wanting to get some real life practice in apologetics.

Sadly, it's really hard to discuss matters rationally with them since they always go back to their testimony: "Well, if you read the Book of Mormon, and pray about it sincerely, the Holy Spirit will let you know it is true. I have done this, and I know it to be true."

So, we're stuck in a land of subjectivity. But perhaps there is some hope for seeds of rational faith to be planted. I don't know.

I already have better-than-average knowledge of Mormonism, but I want to know even more, so I'm researching the subject. I'm reading a book called Inside Mormonism, and I found an interesting website: www.utlm.org

If you look long enough on the site (or just go to No More Penalties on this page) you can even find evidence on this site showing the connection between the original secret Mormon temple ceremonies and Masonic rites. I'll note some briefly:

Morgan revealed the oath that Masons took in the "First Degree" of their ritual: "...I will... never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasony... binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots..."

Now compare that to:

In Temple Mormonism, published in 1931, p. 18, we find this information concerning the Mormon ritual:

"The left arm is here placed at the square, palm to the front the right hand and arm raised to the neck, holding the palm downwards and thumb under the right ear.

'Adam—" We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic prieshood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots.'...

"Sign—In executing the sign of the penalty, the right hand palm down, is drawn sharply across the throat, then dropped from the square to the side."

Of course, this is has been cut from the current temple ceremonies, so it won't do you much good in an argument. Besides, making accusations like, "Your ceremonies are based on Masonic rituals," isn't a very charitable way to argue in a debate, and will just harden the Mormon against your position.

It may, however, be relevant if a Mormon brings up the pagan influence on certain Christian celebrations. Then you could respond, "Yes, the Church may have adapted existing celebrations to fit the Christian religion when it was converting pagan nations, but the LDS church originally adapted Masonic rites for use in its most sacred ceremonies, so what is your complaint?"

This makes the broaching the subject less of an offensive attack and more of a riposte. But a clever Mormon will counter that the Mason ritual and the Mormon temple ritual both date back to Solomon's temple.

On Using Words

Today I came across a website that claimed the popular quote, “Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary,” made St. Francis sound like a wimp. I've lost that original site, but the site he links to showing that this is not an actual quotation of St. Francis can be seen here.

Still, I think that calling the quote "wimpy" is based on a misunderstanding. Sadly, I think this misunderstanding is common, and I think that many Catholics use it to justify an attitude of, "I can just go peacefully about my Catholic life, not bothering anyone about religion, and people will be converted by my good example."

The simple fact is that the average "good person" does not glow so radiantly with goodness that they preach their faith just by existing. If they did, we would certainly have many more people converting to the Catholic faith.

So then, how should we view the quote?

First, I think the quote may have come from people in a Catholic country, where leading by example might be more important than preaching.

Second, I think that it could be looked at more clearly if we invert it: Preaching the gospel with your words will have little effect if you are not living the gospel yourself. This is akin to Jesus saying to remove the beam from your own eye before going after the speck in the eye of another.

But I think it is best understood by looking at the lives of some of the saints.

Let's look at (the not-quite-canonized) Mother Teresa. She preached the gospel constantly in her care of the sick. She certainly used many words to preach it as well. But her words gained much more power by her actions.

So, I think the wrong way to apply the quote is, "Don't talk about religion unless forced to."

And the proper way is, "Live the gospel in every moment, and whenever the time is right, preach it."