The worst scandal yet for the Catholic Church?

[Captain Seafort]

God always hated the Jews.

Someone didn't read his Old Testament.

On the contrary, I'd say the OT emphatically supports that statement. Between hardening Pharaoh's heart when he was planning to grant Moses' demands, sending them trogging round the ulu for twenty years because Moses lost his temper once, and various other shit, I think we can confidently say that "God always hated the Jews" has a fair bit of biblical support.

[Tyyr]

Yeah that whole, "Chosen People," thing is obviously bullshit.

[Mikey]

Well, the term "chosen people" is often misinterpreted - sometimes deliberately, as an artificial justification for hatred. It was never intended to mean the G-d likes us more than anyone else; rather, that we were chosen to bear the responsibility of His commandments and his worship (remember, at that time a people given over to a monolatry would be ostracized at best.) Of course, to the faithful that responsibility would also be seen as a gift, but only the most insular and self-righteous groups of Jews consider "chosen people" to mean any sort of elitism or entitlement.

However, to Seafort I would say that if we read the Bible literally as a period piece, it takes great pains to mention how most of the bad things that G-d caused to happen to the Israelites were generally as a response to the actions of the people themselves. Of course, that again speaks to Judaism's presence as the sole monolatry/monotheism of the world and the associated code of morality which went along with same - as opposed to the local pantheistic religions of the time. The Bible had to make reference to ill consequence for transgression in order to stress one of the primary points of this new faith.

I think his issue is that stories like this and their associated responses tend to single out the Church and somewhat omit the importance of assigning blame equally to the secular parties involved.

I think that has more to do with the fact that this is another in a rather long list of scandals for them. I know my first reaction to it was "what, again?"

Not mine. I found it disgusting, evil, awful, and any other synonym you might want; but I found it depressingly un-shocking. That cynicism, though, wasn't directed at the Church but at people in general. I have always counted on the terribleness of people in general, and I'm rarely disappointed. I was perhaps more disappointed in the Church in that it is supposed to be a moral entity; but then again, so is government (even though we know how well that worked under Franco.) However, the event was just as bad no matter who perpetrated it or allowed it to happen.

[Captain Seafort]

However, to Seafort I would say that if we read the Bible literally as a period piece, it takes great pains to mention how most of the bad things that G-d caused to happen to the Israelites were generally as a response to the actions of the people themselves.

In some cases, yes, although the punishment was usually grossly excessive relative to the offence. Either way, if you drew up a list of all the individuals or groups on the receiving end of God's tantrums throughout the OT, I think the Israelites would have a substantial lead over the various other candidates. However, in both the cases I mentioned the Israelites as a people were either innocent of the offence in question, or the victim of God behaving even more like a spoilt brat than usual. It's as if the plagues of Egypt were a bunch of new toys he'd been given, and he wasn't going to let the Pharaoh release the Israelites until he'd had a chance to play with said toys.

The Bible had to make reference to ill consequence for transgression in order to stress one of the primary points of this new faith.

True, but given the IU nature of the statement "God hated the Jews", we have to analyse the available evidence in an IU manner under SOD. I believe I've mentioned this once or twice before regarding other topics.

[Mikey]

In some cases, yes, although the punishment was usually grossly excessive relative to the offence. Either way, if you drew up a list of all the individuals or groups on the receiving end of God's tantrums throughout the OT, I think the Israelites would have a substantial lead over the various other candidates. However, in both the cases I mentioned the Israelites as a people were either innocent of the offence in question, or the victim of God behaving even more like a spoilt brat than usual. It's as if the plagues of Egypt were a bunch of new toys he'd been given, and he wasn't going to let the Pharaoh release the Israelites until he'd had a chance to play with said toys.

Indeed, but again I have to feel that much of that was hyperbolic - for the reasons I described - in order to impress upon an uncertain populace (and world at large) the awe and respect that should be afforded to an as yet unheard-of pantheon of one.

True, but given the IU nature of the statement "God hated the Jews", we have to analyse the available evidence in an IU manner under SOD. I believe I've mentioned this once or twice before regarding other topics.

Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard you say anything like that. Indeed, I've almost always agreed with that assessment; in this case, however, we are dealing with interpretation of Scripture or commentary on it by St. John Chrysostom, Martin Luther, St. Jerome, John Calvin (I didn't find his exact quote, but he was as bad as any of them,) etc. In that sense, commenting on or interpreting the rationale behind the way Scripture was written is valid.

[Graham Kennedy]

I have always counted on the terribleness of people in general, and I'm rarely disappointed. I was perhaps more disappointed in the Church in that it is supposed to be a moral entity; but then again, so is government (even though we know how well that worked under Franco.) However, the event was just as bad no matter who perpetrated it or allowed it to happen.

I get that, and in a way it's a different spin on that same attitude that took me the other way.

If an individual priest is found doing something then I'm not really shocked by it no matter how disgusting, and more than I'm shocked by an individual teacher or doctor or police officer who does something horrible. Same if it was a failing group - a corrupt school, a corrupt police squad or force, etc.

But if scandals arose within the school system or the police system over and over and over again; if those scandals involved not only the actions of comparatively low level people, but things like their superiors actively covering up for them, actively trying to suppress knowledge of the scandal, moving people they knew were guilty to other schools or police forces where they could carry on with what they were doing - all things the church did with some of the sex scandals it's been involved in. Or if it's so widespread and massive, so long running, that you pretty much have to believe that it was common knowledge that it was going on up to a pretty high level - as it appears to be here?

If all this happened over and over, for a decade or more? Then yeah, I'd find that shocking. And I'd be saying that this is something beyond the failing of individuals, that this looks like a system that is so inherently corrupt that it needs to be torn down and something a bit more transparent and accountable put in place.

[Mikey]

I really do get what you're saying. And further, you can't be the only one by a long shot. But was the entire Catholic population of the world responsible? Was the global Catholic population responsible in 1096, or for the Irish "girls' schools?" Listen - the degree of sheer disgustingness of this event makes one's blood boil, mine as well as yours. Unfortunately, tearing down the Catholic Church doesn't just tackle the problem of corruption and license; it has the side effect of punishing tens of millions of Catholics worldwide who are completely innocent. Further, for good or ill, it is not in your - or my, or anyone else's - purview to punish a sovereign extranational entity for violating our moral compass, no matter how egregiously. That license and responsibility rests solely with the Catholic laity, and hopefully it will take that responsibility seriously.

[Reliant121]

In a simple note, I rather think 1 and-a-bit billion people will still go on believing in the church regardless of one scandal in which the church is complicit but not directly responsible, even though it's clearly a pretty large scandal. It's hardly the first time that the bastion of piety, charity and purity has been involved in something "morally questionable" and most of those times members of the church were directly responsible.

[Graham Kennedy]

I really do get what you're saying. And further, you can't be the only one by a long shot. But was the entire Catholic population of the world responsible?

Of course not, but my anger is directed at the church itself, not the members. I'm not suggesting that this should make people stop believing in their deity, or stop believing in Catholic doctrines. If I were one of them (I suppose technically I could claim membership actually - I was baptised Catholic, though obviously it didn't take in my case!) I'd want the system torn down and rebuilt in some other form that's rather more accountable and rather more transparent.

Further, for good or ill, it is not in your - or my, or anyone else's - purview to punish a sovereign extranational entity for violating our moral compass, no matter how egregiously. That license and responsibility rests solely with the Catholic laity, and hopefully it will take that responsibility seriously.

I disagree, somewhat. If the behaviour of that entity is such that it's creating massive and ongoing suffering for who knows how many, then we all have an interest in stopping it. This isn't to say I want to see anything like governments sending the stormtroopers in to smash down the churches. But neither do I want to see such things happen time and time and time again whilst everyone shrugs and says "yeah, it's horrible, but what ya gonna do?"

Something rather in the middle would suit me.

[Mikey]

I was baptised Catholic, though obviously it didn't take in my case!

You'll change that tune when you need Max von Sydow to come perform an exorcism for you.

I'd want the system torn down and rebuilt in some other form that's rather more accountable and rather more transparent.

I agree, that's why I had mentioned my hope for the laity of the Church to shoulder their responsibility and right to force change. I tend to appreciate slightly more my wife's branch of the Church, which: invites the laity to inspect decisions on promotions within the hierarchy; make their voices heard in policy decisions at the diocese and archdiocese level; and allows married men to become priests (though they still don't allow priests to marry.) I'm usually amused by the reactions I get when I tell people that my wife's Catholic priest is married and has two daughters. While its relationship with Orthodox churches sometimes means a more blunt, archaic view on some issues, the operation right up through the level of cardinals is much more common-sense.

I disagree, somewhat. If the behaviour of that entity is such that it's creating massive and ongoing suffering for who knows how many, then we all have an interest in stopping it. This isn't to say I want to see anything like governments sending the stormtroopers in to smash down the churches. But neither do I want to see such things happen time and time and time again whilst everyone shrugs and says "yeah, it's horrible, but what ya gonna do?"

Something rather in the middle would suit me.

It's hard to see in this case, because of how egregiously awful the activity is, but you're talking about imposing your (and my, for the record) morality on another entity. Certainly you won't find many people who would argue that the Church's actions in this case aren't wrong; but you're also talking about a precedent of punishing and possibly destroying entities which don't follow your morality. Yes, degrees do matter, and yes, the Church is supposed to be a beacon of morality rather than a "how not to" manual. But you in particular are usually so sensitive to one body imposing its will on another that I can't help but think that your opinion is possibly colored by the fact that the acting body in question happens to be an organized, dogmatic religion.

[BigJKU316]

I disagree, somewhat. If the behaviour of that entity is such that it's creating massive and ongoing suffering for who knows how many, then we all have an interest in stopping it. This isn't to say I want to see anything like governments sending the stormtroopers in to smash down the churches. But neither do I want to see such things happen time and time and time again whilst everyone shrugs and says "yeah, it's horrible, but what ya gonna do?"

Something rather in the middle would suit me.

This is where we get back why just the Catholic Church and why just after this event. If those are your standards, and entity causing massive and ongoing suffering ought to be stopped, then I presume you are prepared to confront the Arabic versions of Islam for the conditions in which they place women? What about confronting China over the enforcement of its one child policy? Do you take equal offense to those things and advocate the same response?

[mwhittington]

While this is one of the worst things I've ever seen, the Catholic Church's involvement isn't as surprising as I thought it'd be. After all, the Church was involved in other atrocities, the Spanish Inquisition, the support of Mussolini in WWII via the Lateran Pact, the pedophilia scandal, etc. In my opinion, this probably won't kill Catholicism, but is just another "nail in the coffin".
In case I haven't mentioned it yet, I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses. According to the Bible, which I read frequently, God has 4 qualities: Love, Justice, Wisdom, and Power. He has all of these, but in 1John 4:8, "God is love". Love is involved in everything God does. We can be confident that this is NOT Jehovah's doing, in fact, none of the things I mentioned above are. These were not acts of love. No one involved in these scandals, not just the Catholic Church, proved themselves in harmony with Jehovah.

[Mikey]

Of course G-d wasn't involved in any of those doings, and nobody ever said He was. I don't think anybody even thought of the fact that these atrocities were committed by El Shaddai, but by people. When someone involved in the Church, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or Ba'hai, or whatever, does something - good or bad - it is an action by that person and that person alone.

BTW, why do Jehovah's Witnesses assume that other faiths are baseless and immaterial? A couple came to my door the other day and asked about how I was parenting my children. I told them that while I am Jewish, my kids are being raised as Eastern-rite Catholics, whereupon my visitors told me, "Oh, Catholic? Well, our teachings are based on the Bible." I asked them if they've ever heard of Catholicism before, and when they said yes I told them that their intentional ignorance of the importance of Scripture in both my faith and my family's was offensive and rude.

[stitch626]

Hellfire and the Trinity are the first two that come to mind, but there are many teachings of the Catholic church that are not based in scripture, or are a falsification of scripture.

[Mikey]

Hellfire and the Trinity are the first two that come to mind, but there are many teachings of the Catholic church that are not based in scripture, or are a falsification of scripture.

You're sidestepping. The women who came to call on me claimed that none of the Catholic Church's teachings are based on Scripture. BTW, you're incorrect - if the Church accepts the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, as well as the parts of the Old Testament outside of the Pentateuch as Scripture (and trust me, they do,) then the notions of Hell and the Trinity are firmly rooted in Scripture. The fact that you don't accept as the Bible what they do =/= not basing their dogma on their Scripture.

In fact, while pre-Christian monotheisms (Judaism and its obsolete offshoot sects) don't accept a more modern, typical concept of Hell, the idea of Abaddon is firmly rooted in non-Pentateuch Jewish mysticism, if not halacha.

It's as correct to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses falsify Scripture - they don't keep holidays, if my limited knowledge of their practices is true... even holidays which are explicitly commanded to be kept in Scripture.