Sorry for the hiatus, I have been busy, lazy and lacking in writing inspiration. But enough excuses, now I am marking my return with a post on my favourite topic: Religion. Or is it politics? What's the difference?
Truth is, all organised religions are as much politics as they are religion. To hold power over the masses, politics is undeniably vital. And to say that they are not about power would be akin to saying Megan Fox is ugly. In other words, denial.
But here I point you to the sex abuse crisis the Catholic Church faces, and the Pope's avoidance of the issue. The Pope made no mention nor apology on the issue during the three hour Easter Mass. But what's worse is that some leaders of the Catholic Church called the sex abuse issue a "smear campaign aimed at the Pope." That is no different to what politicians say when their sex scandals were made public. Plus the fact that these were not allegations, these were cases where the clergies themselves have admitted to committing. What happen to the Church that preaches repentance? Clearly, politics is more important than God's forgiveness. Hypocrisy is a virtue in politics, remember?
To their credit, there were a few Archbishops who criticised the Church's handling of the issue. They deserve to be commended for that. I urge more Catholics to do the same.
Despite his silence towards the sex abuse crisis, the Pope did however, say that humanity faces a "profound crisis" and that it needs to undergo a "spiritual and moral conversion." I fully agree. However, I hope the Pope does not regard sex abuse and spreading HIV to others as morally acceptable. If he does not, then I think the Pope should tackle the problems in his own backyard first before trying to "fix the world." Like Michael Jackson said, look at the Man In the Mirror.
There are many other Catholic clergies more deserving to be the Pope than this idiot. The only way to make sense of his election is to draw parallels from how George Bush was elected: He played politics.
Featured Posts
-
Smearing the Pope's face
Dear Vatican, please hire him. With the standards the current Pope has set, he can easily do a better job.
Monday 5 April 2010
Home
Religion
The Catholic Church is a political organisation
The Catholic Church is a political organisation
Post under
Ethics,
Humanity,
Hypocrites,
Politics,
Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments: on "The Catholic Church is a political organisation"
Hi, came across your blog from nicholas yeap's blog.
while reading your post, i cannot help but agree that politics and power have their place alongside religion, even more so in an organisation of so many i.e. te Catholic Church.
nevertheless, even in the midst of these power plays (if they are so perceived), it remains that the actions of the sexually abusive clergymen are in the minority and that the current fallout is a follow up of wrongs which have been perpetuated decades ago and which the Catholic Church was not yet able to access the means of redress. Vatican II has opened up doors to these means, but in the long history of existence, the Church has not always been the most responsive to change and current events.
this is in no way an excuse for aberrant behaviour on the part of the clergy, but a recognition of many other factors the mass media chooses to ignore in its coverage of the scandal.
and for the record, yes, i m Catholic.
It is undeniable that the sexually abusive clergymen are in the minority.
However, I think that the media's oversight of the Church's lack of "responsiveness to change and current events" is in fact doing the Church a favour. Personally, I think an outdated Church would harm its reputation much more than sexual abuse cases, as sexual abuse cases are prevalent throughout society.
Furthermore, lack of "the means of redress" is no excuse to cover up the scandals. There are criminal and civil laws to address that. In fact, there isn't even a need for the Church to do anything more than apologise and report the relevant priest to appropriate authorities (and prevent it from happening again). Why should the Church be above laws that govern everyone else?
Also, is blaming the sexual abuse cases on homosexuality really necessary? Or is it just another obvious proclamation of their political stance?
I propose to deal with your arguments point by point.
firstly, the issue of reputation and Church. while i appreciate that the public may view the Church as 'outdated', it is incumbent on the Church hierarchy, through her priests and clergy, to maintain the continuity with sacred tradition and thus measure each step in the light of faith and providence. the Church is not a corporate entity with a public image to keep up per se, and the importance of upkeeping Tradition is greater than public perception.
This leads to the second point, the means of redress are indeed, as you state, available. and yes, it would seem that all is needed is for the Church to apologise and ensure that these incidences do not recur. In no way am I stating that the Church is above the laws, but that it is also subject to divine law.
There is a notion of scandal, and the hierarchy is tasked with balancing between justice to the victim and the scandal on the part of the flock. this is a difficult balancing process, and while some priests have erred on the side of 'covering up', undeniably, some have also owned up.
The jury is still out on the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse cases. I do not propose to deal with this argument at this juncture.
i view the Church as primarily, an organisation of faith, and separately from the Holy See (which is a country, and a political entity).
for the record, accusations of politicisation have always been leveled at religious/faith congregations. the demarcations are seldom well-established, one need only study the examples of the caliphate after the age of Prophet Muhammad as well as the development of Buddhism after the passing of Gautama Buddha.
Are you suggesting that Vatican City is one big, huge museum?
I realise that the Church is not competing on American Idol, and hence has no need to maintain its public perception, but being outdated is much more than "public perception." My understanding of religion is that it provides a way of life for the masses. How is an outdated religion going to accomplish that?
Your second point contradict your first. Public perception is unimportant, but "the hierarchy is tasked with balancing between justice to the victim and the scandal on the part of the flock."
As for homosexuality and sexual abuse, there is currently no evidence to suggest that homosexuals contribute to a higher rate of sexual abuse. The only place where that link exist is in the Catholic Church. That is in no way a representation of the the general public, thus the Church's blaming of the sexual abuse on homosexuality is unacceptable. In fact, that argument may be used to counter the Church. The higher rate of sexual abuse among homosexuals in the Church may be the effect of the Church's suppression of homosexuality.
Although I did refer to internal politics in my blog post, my main qualm with organised religion is not with their internal politics. Any organisation is bound to have its fair share of internal politics. The problem arises when religious organisations use their power to influence national policies, especially in secular countries.
3 sentences in your reply jump out at me, and i shall post my response as follows:-
How is an outdated religion going to accomplish that (a way of life for the masses)?
- the notion of 'outdated' is one that must be seen in the light of the Church maintaining apostolic succession i.e. its continuity with the teachings passed down from Christ to St. Peter and the appointed bishops and keeping up with the changing times. it is a balancing process, as most things are today. you are entitled to your view on this matter i.e. that the Church is too slow etc., but i believe some clarification is necessary.
The only place where that link exist is in the Catholic Church.
- i have an issue with this, as i am unable to see how you derived this conclusion. perhaps some evidence and/or references would be helpful?
The problem arises when religious organisations use their power to influence national policies, especially in secular countries.
- from the perspective of a believer, it is incumbent upon each Catholic to live in accordance to their beliefs. this includes effecting social change where necessary. it is more a question of viewpoint than anything else. you appear to be in favour of separation of church(religion)and state - a topic which is an entire debate in itself (!)
the Vatican is not a giant museum, and scandal here refers to those on the part of Catholics. what i am saying is that public perception (to ALL and SUNDRY) is one thing, and the accountability and duty the Church owes is primarily to its members.
i am aware that the Catholic faith sounds esoteric, exclusivist but this is because where logic ends, faith begins.
one cannot think one's way into faith, it requires a leap.
thank you for your responses and comments thereto. i have enjoyed this discussion greatly in the midst of the sometimes mundane tasks. wishing you all the best.
Point 1:
It is completely understandable if they want to keep with tradition regarding the hierarchy of the Church. But the "outdatedness" I was referring to was more of the Church's teachings with regards to their societal relevance. But like you said, that is my opinion. Then again, I am not alone in that, and that is where the "public perception" referred to previously, comes in.
Point 2:
That was a claim made by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone himself.
Point 3:
But effecting laws that effectively govern non-believers as well, would be forcing their views on to others. And I don't think the Bible preaches that. Then again, I am not well-versed with the Bible.
Point 4:
So protecting its members is more important than justice for non-members? Aren't we all creations of God? Or at least that's what Christianity claims. What you seem to be suggesting is that non-believers of your religion would be "lesser" human beings. This is how wars are triggered.
That is not faith. It is nepotism. Unless you mean having faith in that those accused priests are innocent.
I do agree that faith and logic cannot be used to explain one another. However, there does not seem to be a clear cut line separating logic and faith at the present moment. Proponents of faith constantly use it to argue against logic. And proponents of logic constantly do the same to faith. Where should we draw the line?
I apologise if all these sound offensive. That was not my intention. I just don't know how to phrase it otherwise. (Or don't have the time to.) Jesus love assignments, I mean, you (and me, apparently).
you lost me at your last sentence :)
but really, as long as these discussions can be carried out civilly, i see nothing wrong. of course some of the things you mentioned border on the offensive, but given that i am not here to make a convert out of you, but only to clarify certain matters, it's ok.
yes, that line is difficult to determine. but in the meantime, at some point in the discussion, we can all agree to disagree and be respectful of each other's beliefs.
good luck for your exams. it's been a long time since i had one (!)
Post a Comment