This fixation on matters ‘spiritual’
Paula Kirby says she was, at first, impressed by the pope’s letter to the Irish about the child-rape problem.
How many politicians or corporations have been able to bring themselves to say, ‘You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry’? I was impressed. (On reflection, perhaps more impressed than I should have been, given that statements of contrition trip lightly off the tongues of those who repeat them daily in Mass or in the Confessional, and are told that repentance is all that is required to release them from guilt.)
Exact, as they say in Sweden. The contrition sounded entirely empty and in fact insulting, to me, for that very reason, but then I’ve been soaked in the malfeasance of the Irish Catholic church for a few years now. Anyway Paula got over it as soon as she read further.
Yet this was offset by what followed, a bewildering ramble blaming the problem on the growing secularisation of Irish society and the resulting failure of Catholics to observe practices such as frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats. It tried to suggest that the sense of betrayal should be directed towards the church authorities in Ireland – creating the entirely misleading impression that those authorities had somehow acted off their own bat and had not simply been following instructions from the Vatican itself.
Didn’t it though. In sort it did what it always does; it failed to admit that the church itself as an institution had behaved criminally and sadistically, full stop. Reading Geoffrey Robertson QC’s The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse made sense of all that for Paula:
The answer, it turns out, is simple. The Vatican is not interested in crime. The Vatican is only interested in sin.
Sin is an offence against God: the victims are God, the church, and the soul of the sinner.
Just so, and this is why Karen Armstrong’s claim that compassion is at the heart of every great religion is such nonsense. No it isn’t. God is at the heart of every “great” religion (making Hinduism and Buddhism something other than “great,” which in this case is probably a compliment). God is at the heart, not compassion, and that means that what humans are supposed to be is above all obedient, not compassionate. It’s not an accident that “islam” means submission; it’s just surprising that it took so long.
This fixation on matters ‘spiritual’, this obsession with religious dogma and ‘sin’ rather than suffering and crime, and with ‘penance’ and ‘redemption’ rather than justice and concern for the victims, is deeply, inherently immoral. For how can there be morality without empathy? How can there be justice without redress for the victim? Under canon law, the law of the Vatican, which the Pope still insists is the only law that may be applied to his child-rapists, the perceived abuse of a wafer counts for more than the actual abuse of real, human, flesh and blood.
And they mean it. This isn’t some aberration, some temporary bit of reaction; this is what the Catholic church is.
I think Kirby rather over-complicates the situation. The Church didn’t cover this shit up because it has some distorted focus on sin over injustice. It covered it up because disclosure could have had a negative impact on the market for marks. Over the time in question, thousands of school directors undoubtedly did the same. You don’t have to be religious to let self-interest lead you to depravity. But…
Only a religious body could be that depraved. It enrages me to reflect on how victims and their families hoping for justice were threatened with alienation from the institution they thought essential to their redemption. That so many clergy found themselves willing to assent to this arrangement suggests that there is something profoundly evil in this institution.
Well said Ken.
It’s amazing that these religious Mafiosi still comsiders themselves above the secular law, I’d also agree that there’s an element of ‘brand protection’ involved. Does the Church recruit such moral imbeciles or does it create them?
Ken,
I think you’re half right. It’s true that the Church was (and is) motivated by self-protection here rather than convoluted theology. But it is also true that the Church can’t admit that, and so the convoluted theology is brought into play. But the theology becomes a problem in and of itself. It is crap theology that leads to anti-condom propaganda. It is crap theology that tries to withhold divorce from couples who wish to separate. It is crap theology to withhold human rights from homosexuals. Even if the “sin and repent” theology was created for its diversionary effects in the case of child abuse, it nevertheless has a life of its own and is well worth criticising.
Where I agree with you is in reminding people that the core issue is very simple and needs no fancy moral footwork. The Catholic Church was, and continues to be, wrong in its handling of child abuse: abysmally wrong, repeatedly wrong, and vindictively wrong.
BTW, I don’t think that the worst levels of depravity can be achieved only by religious bodies. Just saying.
I dunno, Ken, I think we’d all be surprised at how many True Believers there are even up to the highest levels. In fact I think it’s quite likely that Ratzy himself is a True Believer (heh, we are actually seriously asking ourselves, “Is the Pope Catholic?”). Surely for many of the Catholic leadership, the motivation was cynical self-interest, but I wouldn’t discount this line of reasoning either. I thought this was a real insight by Kirby, so much so that I wrote a blog post about it yesterday.
As I said in the post at my blog, if you make the a priori assumption that failure to properly repent for a serious sin and/or leaving the Catholic church will cause one to burn in eternal hellfire forever, then it would arguably be the rational decision to prioritize the abuser’s souls and the church’s image over the suffering of the abused. In fact, you could even argue that the latter is completely irrelevant in comparison.
Which I guess goes to show just how poisonous it is to put conditions on the afterlife. At least those fluffy fuzzy religions that believe everyone gets to heaven can at least get their earthly (i.e. non-fake) priorities mostly in line. A belief in the possibility of eternal damnation necessarily disrupts that ability.
As you say, Ophelia, this is what the Catholic Church is. This is something we should not forget. Religious people don’t really care about human suffering — which is what makes the lie about the compassion of religious so egregious; what they care about is being ‘right with God.’ And since the church is purportedly the vehicle of God’s will on earth, being right with God is also being right with the church, being in the church’s good graces, for it, after all, has the power to bind and to loose — which is what indulgences are all about.
So, nothing else really matters. And that’s why so much stress is put on the sacraments, because it is through the sacraments that a person is put into right relationship with the church, and through that right relationship is put into a right relationship with God. And this in itself is supposedly healing. It’s a kind of feedback loop. Even though the ministers of the church may, through their actions, harm individuals, the church is always more than either the harmed individuals or the individuals doing harm, and nothing may be permitted to stand in the way of the church doing its holy work, which is conceived to be healing both for abusers and abused. Anything that distracts people from that self-reinforcing system of spiritual fulfilment is immediately suspect, and indeed, if the system is holy, then everything else is, by definition, unholy and to be deprecated. So, of course, secularism, entertainment, anything at all that draws people away from the sacramental life of the church is a danger to the soul’s health and salvation. It’s the bloody Dark Ages all over again.
Of course, though all this may be true about what the church believes about itself, Ken is still right. It’s still a bunch of guys who have a vested interest in seeing that this system perpetuates itself. So covering up is at least partly a way of hiding the seams that show that the whole thing is just a human creation. Whether most of these deluded men are true believers or not, I wouldn’t hazard to say, but I suspect that most of them are very aware of the menschlich, allzu menschlich quality of the church and its system of sacraments which is supposed to mediate divine grace. But, like stage props, they can’t be seen to be manipulated, otherwise it would become impossible to suspend disbelief, and it is that willing suspension of disbelief that allows the sacramental system to “work” at all.
True enough, but also useful if you wish to attract misogynists and homophobes to your organization. Witness the special arrangements for Anglican priests.
When I first read the popes apology, my first thoughts were, you’re not sorry about what happened, you’re sorry you’ve been caught out.
Well, my goodness, put Ratzi’s letter to the people of Ireland next to the new report coming out in Belgium, and it puts a new light on things. It’s just beyond reason to suggest that the popes before Ratzi knew nothing of this, or that Ratzi himself, as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Inquisition), had no knowledge of what had happened and what had been covered up for so long. This should add colour to his visit to Britain. If what Johann Hari has said does not convince people, surely they can’t simply ignore the massive evidence coming out of tiny little Belgium Children as young as 2! The heart weeps.
Back in the early days of “Crackergate,” after PZ had made his threat to desecrate a consecrated wafer but before he had actually done so, a flood of furious Catholics poured into Pharyngula, all trying to plead, argue, and bully their case for canceling the blasphemous act of protest. I remember (or think I remember) one woman in particular. In order that we might realize what was at stake, she told us that the desecration of the host was so foul, so vile, so horrible in her mind, that she would rather one of her own children was raped. Yes, raped. And murdered. That would be preferable. That’s how offended she would be. Shouldn’t we all consider that, and respect feelings so strong? Can’t we now see how important an event this must be, and be a bit afraid of this deed?
Actually, I think her admission had an effect opposite what was intended.
As I recall, I told her she didn’t mean it. Push comes to shove, having a child raped and murdered is going to upset her much more than some violation of a religious rule perpetrated by a stranger who’s not even in the system. But the fact that she could say it, and even for a moment think she meant it, was chilling. It made me afraid of that kind of faith, and what it can apparently do to priorities.
I am sure that woman sleeps better at night, even though the cracker was violated and her child was not. I wonder if she has ever noticed how well she sleeps.
Oh, gawd – that’s horrible, Sastra.
Maybe not surprising though. We’re always hearing claims that “the Prophet [pbuh] is dearer to us than our own families” and similar. People like to pat themselves on the back for the strength of their unreasonable feelings.
True faith and institutional self-preservation arent mutually incompatible: religions in which these factors conflict wouldn’t last long.
You don’t need to assume cynicism or insincerity on behalf of the leadership – such institutions will select leaders who’s faith best fits the need of the institution.
In fact, that’s true of most institutions, which is why an analysis of the institution is more important than the personalities (popes, presidents, CEOs) who just happen to lead them at present.
@Shatterface. You said:
What is that supposed to mean? What on earth is true faith? What makes it true? What makes it faith? This is the kind of language that religion always uses to suggest that there is something out there pure and true, that it is real and precious and worthy to be sought. I don’t believe it.
Eric,
I think what Shatterface means is that it is possible to Truly Believe as well as act in preservation mode. Or to put it another way, it is easy to align one’s personal True Beliefs with one’s self-interest. It was a comment about how easy it is to create justifications *and believe them*. At least, that’s what I took from the comment.
@ Sastra: It’s horrible, but I can believe that she meant it, even for an instant. I’m reminded of a huge scandal, here in France several years ago, when a Catholic priest who was also a boy scouts coach was judged and condemned for letting several boys die in a sailing accident through criminal negligence. The most appalling thing, to me, was that parents of the dead boys defended him, even though all testimonies showed that he acted recklessly, urging the boys to go out with the boat in dangerous weather, in order to “build courage and manliness” or some such nonsense. One of the parents said, textually: “We have full confidence in Father X. He’s the father of our children.”