to wonder how one could still be a member of the Catholic Church

[winkywinkola]

or any church that has a history of such utter cruelty?

I'm just listening to Radio 4's programme on the mass graves found in Ireland.

I read today that the Pope made some unofficial mention of 2% of priests being paedophiles. So what?

Is there any other institution that constantly ducks and dives to avoid responsibility for the sheer brutality of its actions?

I am aghast.

My sil is ardently Catholic. She and her dd go to church 4 times at the weekend. I've never discussed this with her but I am keen to know how modern Catholics - or those of other religions - reconcile their religion with such seemingly cruel institution.

Provocative? Perhaps.

"That might work in a naice area but the people who suffer most in poorer Catholic parishes, if parishioner support is withdrawn, are the parishioners themselves, not the bigwigs in the Vatican. So it's not that simple."

So find a way of making sure the money goes to those that need it, and withold the Vatican's %age.

brdgrl - also for the purposes of comparison, the wealth of the Vatican is estimated (because they have always been very guarded about such matters - don't know why) to be approximately $8 billion. Now obviously, a lot of this are those glorious buildings and artworks, not just investments.

The BBC doesn't have that. The BBC have also paid tax on their income and investments for decades. The Vatican only started paying tax in 2012.

NotNew, I am sorry that I used the wrong gender-specific pronoun. I trust you aren't actually offended.

The rest of my post stands. The comparison is entirely valid.
For the simplest example, it is against the law not to pay a licence fee if you have a TV. It is not against the law not to worship at the Catholic Church.
You are not comparing like to like, actually. It is not against the law to not pay a licence fee and not own a TV. Watching TV and paying the licence fee is a voluntary^ participation in an institution.

Finally, your own religious change of practice does not mean that it is reasonable to expect others to do so. The central tenets of the Catholic faith would actually make it impossible, for a believer to become, say, a Baptist. It's really over-simplistic (and shows a lack of knowledge about Catholic theology and history) to suggest that Catholics can or should change their religion.

It's actually rather offensive, and I doubt it would go over well if a similar suggestion was made to say that Muslims who do not support jihadists could just switch to being Baptists, seeing as how they could still have faith that way.

The BBC have also paid tax on their income and investments for decades. The Vatican only started paying tax in 2012.
What is your point? I think I have been quite clear in saying that Church is not above reproach, far from it. I am personally active in several groups which work to challenge the Catholic Church.
Tax avoidance is wrong. It doesn't mean that Catholicism is wrong.

But if you wish to make this a discussion of financial abuse, you might also wish to comment on the other institution I mentioned in my post, the monarchy.

And I do not believe that there were loads of people in the hierarchy of the BBC involved in institutionalised abuse of children in anything like the scale that has taken place within the Catholic church.
As you are obviously aware, the BBC is a teensy bit smaller than the Catholic Church.
But I guess this is about "acceptable levels" of abuse.

"The central tenets of the Catholic faith would actually make it impossible, for a believer to become, say, a Baptist."

Absolutely. But it is possible to be a Catholic and not go to church if no suitable church is available.

As far as I am aware, the BBC is a business whose job is providing radio and television programmes.

It does not claim to be a moral arbiter and to control and judge the behaviour of millions world wide.

Brdgrl's point is quite right. If you are brought up as a Catholic there are very specific things about your faith which are not replicated in other Christian denominations. As such, you can't just move churches. Also, a very important part of being a Roman Catholic is the attendance of weekly Mass. I don't always go but I am aware that I should be there and it does feel slightly wrong not to be. If I started worshipping at a C of E church I still wouldn't feel that I had fulfilled that weekly commitment.

There is much to abhor about the Catholic church, some of which is inherent in the religion, like its misogyny which I struggle with enormously, but much of which is not in its teachings but is a result of appalling human failures and, most worryingly for the future, the seeming ongoing tendency to try to sweep averything under the carpet. However, there is also much good done by the Church, both at a local and international level, and I see no benefit of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The Church needs reforming, yes, and particularly to open up and accept accountability, but it needs doing so from the inside, and just leaving it is no real answer.

I have also found that those people who abandon the Church with much talk of its abuses, and particularly those who have actively taken steps to be removed as members, tend to be those who weren't that involved with it in the first place. But that is obviously just amongst the people I know.

Absolutely. But it is possible to be a Catholic and not go to church if no suitable church is available.
I agree, and I do not attend a church here.

As far as I am aware, the BBC is a business whose job is providing radio and television programmes.
I'm sorry, but that is a vast understatement of the role and responsibilities of the BBC as a media The institution of the media is arguably as powerful as organised religion, and while the BBC is only one arm of that institution, akin perhaps to a particular diocese, they are a representative of that institution, and a powerful one.

And again. The principle remains. If Catholics are hypocrites or weakminded for remaining with the Church, as some on this thread are implying, then so are we all for not rejecting these other institutions which act in our names to mistreat other human beings - but which we remain loyal to because they give us pleasure or because they fulfill our needs.
To paraphrase Shaw, we're all whores, just haggling over price.

brdgrl - abuse is not acceptable full stop. I did not suggest it lesser levels make it more acceptable and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I was merely saying that I honestly don't believe you can compare the BBC (which is, I think, who you were referring to without actually naming it) with the Catholic Church. They are totally different and, as Hak says, the BBC does not lecture people on their morality and behaviour.

We could have a huge discussion on the problems I have with Catholicism and where its teachings and doctrines seem to be at odds with the Bible or where it's teachings stick with the Bible but which cause greater issues (contraception being one). But no need on this thread.

Suffice it to say there are nice Catholics out there!!

PS, no not at all offended by you thinking me a woman

I didn't know that, if you were a Catholic, a loophole allowing you to leave was closed so you are a Catholic forever. The first thing that came into my head as I read that was the Sudanese woman who was Muslim and changed to Christian...... I'm not saying it's the same thing but something to think about.

I also listened to the programme on Radio 4 last night at 9.00pm well a couple of minutes after the news about the mass graves in Ireland and the mother and baby homes. How the babies were taken from the mothers at birth without their consent, forged signatures, nuns, mother who never saw her baby resulting from a CS, mother who wanted to keep her baby but it was still taken away. Several thousand babies in a mass grave. 45% mortality was something I could not believe I'd heard without my jaw on the floor, The question to be asked is how and why did those babies die in such numbers? Poor little things. Were they starved? Just left somewhere to not fend for themselves? Hypothermia? Purposely disposed of? I can't bear the thought of it all. I'm just so glad I don't live there.

NotNew, I hear you. I think the truth is that many, many, many Catholics can relate to this - the problems I have with Catholicism and where its teachings and doctrines seem to be at odds with the Bible or where it's teachings stick with the Bible but which cause greater issues - and many of us want to see changes, even revolution, within the Church.
There are not just nice Catholics, but progressive ones. Groups like Catholics for Choice, for example.

By the same logic, are you stunned that people can bear to be English, given the forthcoming investigation into the Westminster paedophile ring? Stunned that people can bear to be American given their track record on execution, human rights and drone strikes? Or bear to be a citizen of any country with a slavery record? Do you boycott every organisation that has a questionable history?

(In other words, YABU, of course)

"The Church needs reforming, yes, and particularly to open up and accept accountability, but it needs doing so from the inside, and just leaving it is no real answer."

I'm not suggesting that Catholics should leave the Church. I'm suggesting they should stay within the Church, but not go to Church. Thereby actively showing the hierarchy that the laity are insisting on action.

But NotNew, isn't one of the main differences between the RC church and other Christian denominations (and one of the reasons behind schism in the first place) the lack of emphasis the RC church place on the bible though? So really, if you want a church which sticks closer to Biblical teaching, you go for a Protestant one, particularly one more at the Evangelical end of the spectrum (as you have no doubt done) rather than worrying about the RC's approach to this side of things?

That said, the RC church's apprrach to contraception is a massive issue and does need to be tackled. Not so much in the West, where I think it is honoured more in the breach by Catholics, but definitely in the developing world where it causes untold misery.

' I can't bear the thought of it all. I'm just so glad I don't live there.'

Ireland has changed a bit since the 1950's you know.

The question to be asked is how and why did those babies die in such numbers?

There's death certs for all of them, and the infant mortaility rate wasn't that much higher than in the general population at the time. Ireland, I suppose you are not aware, was third world at that time, and had recently lost half the population through famine.

That was clearly one crappy documentary.

Suggest OP googles for evidence of similar practices by non-Catholic churches in both Ireland and the US.

I grew up Catholic and fought it every inch of the way. Have been atheist for many years now but I still have a residual fondness for the church owing to the current climate within it of kindness and pastoral care. Its current benevolence compared to 50 years ago is palpable, but even then there were plenty of nice clergy within it.

The point about the Catholic church is that it is catholic, non-schismatic etc so the response to non-participation is to drift gently away rather than protest (note, clue in this word).

brdgrl

Absolutely agree with everything you have said regarding both faith and making change from the inside

I don't have any faith but I completely understand how strong it can be in people that do

The babies and children died because they had little value to those who should have cared for them. Nourished but insufficiently unlike the priests, nuns and staff who thrived.

They should have been much better placed to withstand the physical hardships of the time but were victims of deliberate neglect and cruelty.

HappyAgain, you wouldn't have a problem. Goodest country in the world now! During the relevant time period, even relatively wealthy farmers' children were being wiped out in large numbers by TB.

I'm not suggesting that Catholics should leave the Church. I'm suggesting they should stay within the Church, but not go to Church. Thereby actively showing the hierarchy that the laity are insisting on action.
I take your point and even agree to an extent (I certainly think we can speak volumes through our participation in committees and in our response to targeted appeals). I think there is a counter-argument, also convincing to me, that by withdrawing from the local Church, it leaves the local decision making to the more conservative element.
It's a quandry, for sure, to know how best to achieve the change we want to see in the world, and that's true in many aspects of life. :( I absolutely abhor the religiously divided/divisive schooling here - but have to consider the best way to challenge that - homeschooling? less well-regarded integrated schooling? being very active on the PTA? moving away?
As regards Catholicism, I am not willing to leave the arena to the most conservative and unpleasant practitioners, I suppose.

Squoosh It wasn't the 1950s. It was still going on in the 1970s and 1980s. Some of the mothers gave their experiences and one said that her son, who was removed from her at his birth, would have been 30 something now.

ApocalypseThen There might well have been death certificates but how do we know that the true reasons for death were on them? There was no famine at the time. What documentary are you talking about?

Are you still there, WinkyWinkola?

Yes HappyAgainOneDay, but my point remains that Irish society has moved on, people are no longer caught in the iron fist of Catholicism.

I'd go so far as to say it's quite a pleasant place to live.

I remember when Ann Lovett died, it's haunted me ever since to be honest. But Ireland of 2014 is a hugely different place from Ireland of 1984.