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.

Ah, and now the simplistics have arrived. Time for lunch.

It does seem that the Catholic Church (note: not the Catholic faith) has got away, literally sometimes, with murder for centuries.
Yes, there are paedophiles in all walks of life, but the extraordinary prevalence of them in the Catholic Church cannot simply be overlooked.
My DFIL still has emotional problems in his 70s because of the severe punishments he endured in a convent school. He was told at 7 that he would burn in hell, and had his mouth washed with soapy water for 'blaspheming'.

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

I don't think Apocalypse meant all doctrine. Papal infallibility, as I said up thread, is related to the teaching role of the church and the premiss that the original revelation as given to the apostles by Jesus was infallible. On the exceedingly rare occasions when a pope speaks ex cathedra then it means that as far as the teachings of the church go, it is original doctrine, from the original revelation. It's been used a handful of times and doesn't apply to all doctrine. Doctrine changes. Priest used to be married, now they are celibate. Marriage itself wasn't something the church concerned itself with generally until about 400 yrs ago. It isn't preserved in aspic but is a living tradition, changing and being applied to new situations. Additionally, even if something is proclaimed ex cathedra, an individual doesn't have to believe it. Conscience first, and then the Pope.

@squoosh

You seem to be conflating opposition to abortion with opposition to gay marriage and suggesting both indicate an attitude of intolerance.

How odd.

You seem confused CatholicDad. I suggest you re-read what I wrote.......

'I'm a (col)lapsed Catholic and reject a lot of its teachings, I disagree with it fundamentally on so many issues, abortion/birth control/homosexuality etc.'

I was talking about my reasons for rejecting Catholicism. There are many! My personal view is that abortion isn't wrong and gay marriage isn't wrong.

I was raised Catholic, but attend CoE now. Many things with catholicism i strongly disagree.

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

ok. where?

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.

OK.

However, I do have a question in this regard, and this may be where I am misunderstanding. What is stopping one from saying I want no part of this, I am no longer a Catholic? The church doesn't own anyone. I am not saying you should do this, but I am asking what stops one from doing this. Some have claimed you can't. I haven't read the thread end to end, but it's not clear to me what is stopping someone who wants to leave from leaving.

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

I am sure he is, and what a dire state it would be if he wasn't. But it is unclear how involved he (in particular Benedict) was in NOT outing problem priests. It seems to me the right course of action is to hand over the list of accused priests to local authorities and let those priests face the law, yet it seems what was done is that priests were dealt with in house and defrocked. Bishops are accused of worse (moving priests about). Such priests should face the law.

However, I do have a question in this regard, and this may be where I am misunderstanding. What is stopping one from saying I want no part of this, I am no longer a Catholic? The church doesn't own anyone. I am not saying you should do this, but I am asking what stops one from doing this. Some have claimed you can't. I haven't read the thread end to end, but it's not clear to me what is stopping someone who wants to leave from leaving.

Well, apparently you can't leave any more in the sense that the Church will still claim you in stats if you were baptised (something someone said upthread I believe).

But the main reason is personal and social I suppose. If you are a Catholic who believes in God (as opposed to those who are effectively Catholic atheists) then the potential loss of your immortal soul will stop you leaving - the feeling that you need to be a Catholic and to keep attending Mass, confession, Holy Communion etc (delete the bits you are personally less bothered about which vary between individuals). For people in this situation (and I include myself in this) another Christian denomination just won't do the trick. Of course, there are plenty of people (one or maybe two on this thread even) who don't feel that way and will and have left the Catholic church for another.

Catholics who are also atheists have different reasons and have explained themselves on this thread pretty well I think. Dara O'Briain also covered the point, albeit in a jokey way, but it sort of strikes at the heart of it I think:

"Im staunchly atheist, I simply dont believe in God. But Im still Catholic, of course. Catholicism has a much broader reach than just the religion. Im ethnically Catholic, its the box you have to tick on the census form: Dont believe in God, but I do still hate Rangers. The fact is that its a shared hinterland between me and every other Irish person, a collection of references that we all understand, stories we all know, our opinions about William of Orange, everything. It plunges you into a particular side of every debate, its like a huge club you cant ever leave. Im definitely a Catholic, and nobody could possibly believe in God less than I do.

• Dara OBriain, The Word, April 2006"

Whether he would still say the same, of course, I don't know.

Frozen, that is a very effective description of how I feel. Catholicism is the culture I was born into. Not, in my experience, a culture of cruelty and horrific abuse - just singing in Latin, the Virgin Mary, the rosary, the shrine my grandad built. Now, as an adult I am aware of those things and sickened by them. But they are not exclusively Catholic things. They are not exemplars of what Catholicism is 'about.'

When you grow up with all these cultural signifiers, they mean something to you. I'm not a regular mass goer and reject a lot of what's in the Bible but I have my own relationship with my faith. I do believe in God and find the sights, sounds, smells of Catholicism very comforting in my own way. C of S/E holds none of that for me.

Where I come from (Glasgow), to suggest a Catholic simply 'swapped' to Protestantism would be very insulting. A lot of people are still angry about how their Irish or Italian grandparents were treated when they came to the UK - made to feel like shifty, leftfooter scum and actively ostracised from certain places and jobs. The legacy of Catholicism and Protestantism in my city is a bitter, violent one, not to be discussed lightly.

Corey, that reminds me.that my Mum experienced that coming from Ireland to work in London in the early 60s. The No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish signs were still up in those days though she did find a lovely Protestant landlady who did take her in and in fact used to wake her up in time for Mass every Sunday .

Corey and Frozen, these reasons can't be forgotten. My parents reported the same of their early days in London (though like yours they also encountered wonderful exceptions).

The Dara O'Briain quote is also spot-on. Writtenguarantee, I won't attempt to improve on it, it is the same for the second generation and I guess Italians, Poles etc have similar frames of reference.

Today there's some reporting about Kincora - not a Catholic issue. Dare I suggest Catholics are now washing more dirty linen in public? (Rightly IMO).

If you read this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28304743 you begin to realise that in the 70's and 80's and probably later sexual abuse was endemic in a lot of circles and a blind eye was turned to it in several powerful organisations not just the catholic church.

The catholic church worldwide is huge and therefore attracts a lot of attention. It has of course many enemies too.

what we really need is some research into the causes of paedophillia. We can't change a single thing that happen yesterday or before ( of course justice should take its natural course) but we can try to change tomorrow & beyond. Safeguarding is fine but what is the cause?

Corey and Frozen we didn't have to go as far as London to find those attitudes. Living in Northern Ireland our local housing officer (a [unionist] councillor) was quoted as saying 'No Catholic pig and his litter will ever get a home in Carries home town while I am here!'"

These are sad stories Carrie and Frozen... Not meaning to be disingenuous, but maybe stories like these go some way to answering the OP's original question. How can a person still be Catholic? Because in the UK at least, many Catholics are descended from people who were made to suffer because of that culture and religion and that's not something you can easily let go?

yes corey my grandparents and further back suffered for thier beliefs.

However i also think many young men and women were forced into religious life who had no vocation ( and possibly no real faith) because it was traditional to have a priest / nun in the family or it was seen as a good life. They then hated themselves and thier lives and therefore the children in thier care too.

The issue isn't so much that child abuse has and continues to be overlooked in some social circles (see the current frantic activity at Westminster for an example), but that the Catholic church sets itself up as some sort of moral authority and has systematically covered up, minimised and denied the illegal and immoral actions of its priests and others against minors.

I also don't agree that the issue is looking into the cause of paedophilia. The focus should be on supporting the millions of people affected (and much more deeply affected if institutional abuse within an authority which condoned it ie the Catholic Church), ensuring that those responsible for criminal acts receive full punishment within the CJS and ensuring that such abuse doesn't happen in the future.

Whatever the 'causes' of paedophilia, individual paedophiles need to be held to legal account for their actions. The argument that 'others were doing it too' doesn't hold for war criminals, so I can't see that it's a tenable argument for abusive Catholic priests.

The argument that 'others were doing it too' doesn't hold for war criminals, so I can't see that it's a tenable argument for abusive Catholic priests.
And it is not a defense anyone on this thread is making. Again.

"If you read this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28304743 you begin to realise that in the 70's and 80's and probably later sexual abuse was endemic in a lot of circles and a blind eye was turned to it in several powerful organisations not just the catholic church.

The catholic church worldwide is huge and therefore attracts a lot of attention. It has of course many enemies too."

Yes it is.

Christ, this thread is really making me angry.

How on earth can you claim that 'the Pope is anti-child abuse' when he has overlooked and by doing so condoned those very acts?

Abusers don't ask that others agree with their actions, just that they remain silent, which the Catholic Church has done very well.

In response to the OP, I don't have any religious beliefs but do think it's possible to be a Catholic but distance oneself from the Pope and his authority.

Christina you are missing my point entirely. My argument is not that others were doing it too somehow excuses it. It is don't limit the spotlight to the Catholic church.

My heart absolutely goes out to the millions of victims which is why I don't want to see anymore EVER and for that reason I do think the cause is important. Unfortunately the reasons are probably multiple and difficult to discern.

I agree about helping the victims.

Christina, that is not being used to make a defense of what has happened within the Church. It is, however, relevant in explaining why people choose to remain in the Church. As has been repeatedly and cogently explained by many on this thread.

Catholic posters on this thread have been very frank, honest, and incredibly patient in explaining the many, many reasons why the Church still fulfills a role for them despite our revulsion (and frankly, often more extensive) knowledge of the facts of wrong-doing.

There is also an inherent bigotry in the insistence on defining the Church by this issue, and in a meta-narrative which paints this as a "Catholic issue".

That bigotry is also repeatedly expressed on this thread.

carrie, I don't think I am. You're suggesting that the Catholic Church's 'worldwide enemies' are at least part of the reason that attention is being focused on its covering up of illegal and immoral acts by priests/bishops etc, rather than the severity of the acts themselves, condoned by an organisation setting itself up as some sort of moral authority.

brdgrl, I've read the whole thread and can see little evidence of anyone defining the church by the issue of covering up paedophila or asserting that paedophilia is a 'Catholic issue' only.

It's not 'bigotry' that links the Catholic Church with child abuse - it's the actions of those within it, both the abusers and those who turn a blind eye and/or refuse to let the CJS take its course.

Christina, I'm sorry, but I think you really don't understand what people have been saying. You may have read the thread, but you have categorically missed the point.

I don't agree that I've missed the point at all, although I certainly have a different viewpoint to you, it would seem.

No, missing the point.