[A defence of organized religion] Part 2: Supporting your local pedophile
After a fairly long duration, I'm going to tackle the second issue that I feel is important in organized religion. I've titled my post because of the obvious associations with the Roman Catholic priesthood in particular, but there are other issues I'd like to address in this post as well; namely, the various social teachings of organized religion, whether these are good and what I think should change.
The subject of religious scandal cannot be ignored; from the numerous child abuse cases in Ireland that are only just beginning to surface, to the HIV/AIDS crisis that is being perpetuated (many would argue) by Catholic teachings on contraception. This is just scratching the surface of the iceberg, which includes teachings from many other religions (some of Islam's guidance on apostasy is also controversial, for example), but there are basic principles on which such issues can be discussed.
Why do I think the child abuse scandal in the Catholic priesthood came about, and remained undiscovered for decades? There are a number of reasons. The first, as has been illustrated by various legal cases, is a lack of transparency. The extent to which the Church operates in secret is shocking; it has been revealed that it did so in the past, and it certainly does so today. There is a culture of silence within the Church, and many priests were afraid to speak out about problems within the system (I am sure that in similar circumstances, many priests would also be afraid to speak out today). With greater transparency and openness, as well as a much more vigorous response, the Church could prevent such scandals from ever occurring again. Perhaps the cardinals and archbishops involved at a more senior level were afraid of damaging the Church's reputation; I can understand that. To attempt to brush such a problem under the carpet is however, is simply against Christian teaching.
There is another reason why I suspect the scandal in the priesthood became so terrible; it is similar to the reasons behind the Catholic Church's position on contraception in the wake of the HIV/AIDS crisis. As Diarmaid McCulloch writes in a recent Guardian article, celibacy in the priesthood is incredibly damaging; as many commentators have also stated, the Catholic Church's position against condom usage for HIV/AIDS will ultimately cost the lives of many. So, why does the Church hold these policies? Are they essential to organized religion? Is organized religion necessarily dogmatic and restricting?
As the Winnipeg Statement (published shortly after Humanae Vitae) makes clear, many Catholics in the West find it impossible to "make their own all elements of [Humanae Vitae]". The bishops' statement made it clear that these Catholics "should not... consider themselves shut off from the body of the faithful". Why? Because in a modern, secular society, the boundary between a member of a religious communion and an unaffiliated member of society is becoming blurred. Fewer people in the West follow religious traditions in a dogmatic way; many groups such as LGCM and the Liberal Catholic Church have sprung up around this divergence in social teaching. I believe there are many people in the Church who would like to see a return to the radical Christian social teaching that was part of the foundation of the many Churches we take for granted today.
I call for this change, along with many other people, with a sense of urgency. The Catholic Church, and many other churches in the developing world, is one represented by conservative voices. These are the voices that get the most media coverage, the voices which affect the way in which the views and practices of ordinary religious people are viewed by the wider society. Many of the views being expressed by these people, as well as their actions, are slowly destroying the reputation of organized religion and the faith which people place in it. Many people feel that this slow dying down of organized religion is inevitable and even deserved, given its past actions. At times, I am inclined to agree with them. But I cannot help but feel that institutions which do so many good things, along with the bad, are worthy of more careful scrutinizing than that required for a dismissal based on their flaws.
The clergy of the Catholic Church in particular have resulted in a portrayal of the Church that most commonly does not reflect on the social views of many of its members. This is something that is going to have to be addressed sooner or later, if we are to avoid schism (and I am not sure whether that will be possible). However, all of the problems I have mentioned in this part of my defence are not reasons to abandon organized religion. Because I believe there are things which are intrinsically good about organized religion (as I will discuss in Part 3), I believe they are reasons to reform it. What religious people around the world need is a system that they can trust and rely on, that is in accordance with scientific advance and radical social teaching. They do not need a removal of their faith, or of many facets of their religious life. It is precisely because of the importance of organized religion that I am moved to mount a defence at all, and I will address this in my next installment.
The subject of religious scandal cannot be ignored; from the numerous child abuse cases in Ireland that are only just beginning to surface, to the HIV/AIDS crisis that is being perpetuated (many would argue) by Catholic teachings on contraception. This is just scratching the surface of the iceberg, which includes teachings from many other religions (some of Islam's guidance on apostasy is also controversial, for example), but there are basic principles on which such issues can be discussed.
Why do I think the child abuse scandal in the Catholic priesthood came about, and remained undiscovered for decades? There are a number of reasons. The first, as has been illustrated by various legal cases, is a lack of transparency. The extent to which the Church operates in secret is shocking; it has been revealed that it did so in the past, and it certainly does so today. There is a culture of silence within the Church, and many priests were afraid to speak out about problems within the system (I am sure that in similar circumstances, many priests would also be afraid to speak out today). With greater transparency and openness, as well as a much more vigorous response, the Church could prevent such scandals from ever occurring again. Perhaps the cardinals and archbishops involved at a more senior level were afraid of damaging the Church's reputation; I can understand that. To attempt to brush such a problem under the carpet is however, is simply against Christian teaching.
There is another reason why I suspect the scandal in the priesthood became so terrible; it is similar to the reasons behind the Catholic Church's position on contraception in the wake of the HIV/AIDS crisis. As Diarmaid McCulloch writes in a recent Guardian article, celibacy in the priesthood is incredibly damaging; as many commentators have also stated, the Catholic Church's position against condom usage for HIV/AIDS will ultimately cost the lives of many. So, why does the Church hold these policies? Are they essential to organized religion? Is organized religion necessarily dogmatic and restricting?
As the Winnipeg Statement (published shortly after Humanae Vitae) makes clear, many Catholics in the West find it impossible to "make their own all elements of [Humanae Vitae]". The bishops' statement made it clear that these Catholics "should not... consider themselves shut off from the body of the faithful". Why? Because in a modern, secular society, the boundary between a member of a religious communion and an unaffiliated member of society is becoming blurred. Fewer people in the West follow religious traditions in a dogmatic way; many groups such as LGCM and the Liberal Catholic Church have sprung up around this divergence in social teaching. I believe there are many people in the Church who would like to see a return to the radical Christian social teaching that was part of the foundation of the many Churches we take for granted today.
I call for this change, along with many other people, with a sense of urgency. The Catholic Church, and many other churches in the developing world, is one represented by conservative voices. These are the voices that get the most media coverage, the voices which affect the way in which the views and practices of ordinary religious people are viewed by the wider society. Many of the views being expressed by these people, as well as their actions, are slowly destroying the reputation of organized religion and the faith which people place in it. Many people feel that this slow dying down of organized religion is inevitable and even deserved, given its past actions. At times, I am inclined to agree with them. But I cannot help but feel that institutions which do so many good things, along with the bad, are worthy of more careful scrutinizing than that required for a dismissal based on their flaws.
The clergy of the Catholic Church in particular have resulted in a portrayal of the Church that most commonly does not reflect on the social views of many of its members. This is something that is going to have to be addressed sooner or later, if we are to avoid schism (and I am not sure whether that will be possible). However, all of the problems I have mentioned in this part of my defence are not reasons to abandon organized religion. Because I believe there are things which are intrinsically good about organized religion (as I will discuss in Part 3), I believe they are reasons to reform it. What religious people around the world need is a system that they can trust and rely on, that is in accordance with scientific advance and radical social teaching. They do not need a removal of their faith, or of many facets of their religious life. It is precisely because of the importance of organized religion that I am moved to mount a defence at all, and I will address this in my next installment.
Comments
Post a Comment