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.

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.

None of us (or most of us) are "part" of the BBC, or the UK government. Most Brits don't have a second passport, so have no right to leave the UK and live in another country. Catholics and the other hand can simply stop going to church. That is a pretty easy choice to exercise.

I don't think either the UK or the BBC is infallible. Neither profess to be the final word in morality. My understanding is that what distinguishes Catholics from non-Catholic Christians is following the Roman church and the belief in papal infallibility (not a Catholic scholar here, so correct me if I am wrong). Well, the pope did willfully bury scandals, and a pretty heinous one at that (he knew that paedophile priests were being moved around). That is a structural and institutional problem, not just some bad apples. So, by being Catholic, does that not mean you endorse the pope's actions?

There is no equivalence between me and the BBC. if that scandal happened at the BBC, and it did, I say off with the heads of those responsible. If the head of the BBC tried to hide paedophiles, it still wouldn't be the same because no one thinks that the head of the BBC is infallible. Everyone would call for his head.

Papal infalliability applies only when the pope is speaking about matters of doctrine. If he mistakenly says it's Tuesday on a Monday, Catholics don't think it becomes Tuesday.

That's not what papal infallibility is. It's not even close. The church is pretty explicit that you don't have to believe the Pope, or think he's right, or do as he says, or have sex with children. Papal infallibility is often misinterpreted to mean that the Pope is right and therefore you must believe what he says but it isn't the case. It's self evident that you can't believe what you don't believe and it is stated in the catechism. There is a strange contradiction that you are supposed to obey your conscience, even if doing so is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching and would lead to ex-communication. Obeying your conscience doesn't make your beliefs objectively true though. It's like Thomas Aquinas said, conscience binds, but it isn't always right.

Apocalypse that is the best explanation of papal infallibility I've seen.

Was about to say the same - brilliantly succinct!

Papal infalliability applies only when the pope is speaking about matters of doctrine. If he mistakenly says it's Tuesday on a Monday, Catholics don't think it becomes Tuesday.

I assumed that when he makes a clear blunder as in your example, you don't take him seriously.

Reading more, however, it appears that he is the last word on "doctrines of faith and morals" (from www.catholic.com), and as such has a special role in Catholicism on morals, so I would guess his actions matter, no? I assume it isn't do as I say not as I do?

In any case, I was more pointing out the difference between the BBC and the Catholic church. I am both not a voluntary member of the BBC, and I don't think it's head is in anyway special (like the pope).

The church is pretty explicit that you don't have to believe the Pope, or think he's right, or do as he says, or have sex with children.

According to Apocalypse, he is infallible when it comes to doctrine. So how does that square with what you say?

Who is a voluntary Catholic, writtenguarantee, apart from converts?

Cradle Catholics haven't 'volunteered'. But it isn't something you leave (atheist here).

People who are not Catholic underestimate quite how much ignoring of doctrine goes on. There are no consequences to ignoring doctrine and thankfully little fundamentalism.

People who are not Catholic underestimate quite how much ignoring of doctrine goes on. There are no consequences to ignoring doctrine and thankfully little fundamentalism.

but if you ignore doctrine and the pope, but believe in Jesus' sacrifice etc etc etc doesn't that just make you Christian?

Also, to those who say you can't leave the church, really? Just stop going. who cares if the church doesn't recognize your leaving?

The pope is only infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra. Which basically means he is only infallible when he says he is. And he doesn't do that very often.

if you ignore doctrine and the pope, but believe in Jesus' sacrifice etc etc etc doesn't that just make you Christian?

It depends on how much of the doctrine you ignore, if you ignore absolutely all of it then yes that might make you more Christian than Catholic but if you are just ignoring some bits then there is still a difference between Catholicism and Christianity

Why should we leave the Church written, just because you say so? I have been a Catholic all my life. It is part of who I am and although I have had periods where I have been less active in the Church than at other times I can't just say I am not a Catholic any more and pick another Christian denomination. It just doesn't work like that for reasons which have been set out pretty clearly by others on this thread. There are just too many differences between Roman Catholicism and other forms of Christianity to just pick another one instead.

I am truly appalled by much of what has been done by priests, nuns and other members of the Church's hierarchy throughout history frankly, not even just in the recent past, but whilst I am particualrly appalled by the cover ups, I think things are changing and will continue to change for the better over time and such change can be better effected from the inside than the outside.

Plus the fact that if Westerners simply leave the Church in droves rather than staying within it and holding it to account, there will be no imperative for improvements in accountability and openness, and people in the developing world who may not have the same power and ability (or the luxury of time and leisure) to insist on change, will simply continue to suffer.

writtenguarantee, no. I am atheist. I reached that conclusion after a number of years' immersion in Catholicism, from birth. I am a Catholic by culture and have a lot in common with other Catholics who understand the vagaries of Catholicism (this thread is full of them). I have no desire to become another kind of Christian as I do not hold a religious belief. That idea is quite alien to Catholics (explanations throughout this thread).

I'm in the same boat. The idea of Catholics who don't agree with this or that aspect of doctrine finding another church or forming their own church to accord with their specific beliefs is really alien to the Catholic mindset.

Leaving the church is not the same as stopping going, writtenguarantee.

I stopped going ages ago but occasionally pop in when I am in any Catholic country to sit down and look and think and light a candle for departed family. Last time I went to my local church was to have a think about Pope J-P II when he died.

I guess it's a bit like MN :). You can stop posting and no-one notices, or you can officially Flounce, but you DON'T join NetMums (apologies for levity).

Excellent point about the developing world, FrozenAMD.

If I can lower the tone for a moment, I think Monty Python put it quite well:

"I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,"

And therein (sort of) lies the dilemma.

I too find it hard to resist lighting a candle when I find myself in a church or cathedral in a foreign country. Some traditions refuse to die!

LOVE the Monty Python poem. Just about sums it all up.

It's about bums on seats :).

Why should we leave the Church written, just because you say so?

I never said you should leave the church.

writtenguarantee, no. I am atheist. I reached that conclusion after a number of years' immersion in Catholicism, from birth. I am a Catholic by culture and have a lot in common with other Catholics who understand the vagaries of Catholicism (this thread is full of them). I have no desire to become another kind of Christian as I do not hold a religious belief. That idea is quite alien to Catholics (explanations throughout this thread).

Does that make you a secular Catholic? Fine. it sounds like you are mainly in it for the cultural and social value, which I don't think the OP was asking about.

I didn't intend to get so involved in this discussion as I really don't care what church people go to. My entrance here was mainly to highlight the difference between the BBC and the catholic church (I forget who made that point).

Furthermore, and I guess this addresses more of what the OP is trying to ask, is that it seems that in the catholic church the problem is more than "a few bad apples". The problems go to structure of the institution itself. My point on infallibility is not that I have anything insightful to say about it. The point was more that the pope is a special human, and if the pope does wrong, a serious wrong, he's rather hard to get rid of and you get stuck with someone at the head of the organization doing some pretty crooked things, and of course the secrecy doesn't help. This is a particular problem for a church because it claims to be a divine moral guide.

Haven't read the whole thread, just the op. I don't imagine any (all) institution is without flaws. Didn't Ian Paisley keep stumm (protect) about abuse in Kincora boys home? Wasn't the C of E involved in slavery? You've got to separate the baby from the bathwater. RC's all male celibate government dictatorship doesn't help with the way they operate. However, the ordinary Jo(e) RC in the pew is probably just getting on with their life. A lot of things coming out are historic, I believe and a lot of committed RC's are active in trying to change the way their church is run to change. And you can't possibly be insinuating that the ordinary RC parent is less outraged by child abuse and tacitly supporting the way it was dealt with by going to church.

If you were to bring that further, I guess by that reckoning most people in the UK support working conditions which are in all but name slavery (and child slavery) as a lot of goods we buy comes from the far east and people are aware working conditions are dire. Do we support the death penalty because we buy stuff made in China? Also torture for animals as most supermarket meats (and woolen and leather products) are derived from animals kept in dreadful conditions. We're aware that food for export is grown in areas where there are shortages and even the flower industry abroad is rife with bad and toxic conditions. And if we use petrol, the pollution repercussions in the Niger delta with Shell as just one example. Children live in all these areas too. I suppose we're all fellow travellers to some degree. I know this is hyperbole, but it is an extension of the idea and choices we make in different areas of our lives. We can make choices about all these things, and they are probably easier to make than spiritual ones for some people.

As an aside, so delighted with New Balance trainers (made in GB) and Izzy Lane for wool.

Paedophiles insinuate themselves into occupations and posts where they have access to children. Should institutions once aware of it take action to make sure they cannot access children in their role and are handed over to the civil legal system? Yes. The proposal to make the lack of reporting of abuse a crime (forget who, some children's society) is interesting.

Excuse me for going off-piste a bit.

why pick on the catholic church?
they are the same as almost every other organisation and institution.
corrupt.

Oblomov - Um, probably because the Catholic Church has over $8 billion in wealth (churches, artworks, investments), promoting non-use of contraception leading to countless unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, and have been involved in covering up an awful lot of paedophile priests and the systematic physical abuse of children and young women.

Haven't heard about the Quakers or Methodists getting up to that.

writtenguarantee, you are continuing to misunderstand my posts, and everyone else's.

I am not a secular Catholic, just a common or garden cradle Catholic now atheist. Secular implies a continued dynamic with a religious organisation in some way; all I have is a personal history of being Catholic.

The morals of the pope are not at issue here. Last time I looked he was still anti-child abuse.

Pangur ban (how I love that poem) YY, absolutely.