An individual I have a long history with, whom I know as Michael, left a comment on my blog post about the Magdalene Laundries today. It is important that I share it and my response:
StMichael wrote:
Just because the man is Pope doesn’t mean he has knowledge of everything that happens in the universal Church. I’d find it rather improbable that he did, given there wasn’t any public outcry. One has to remember that the government of Ireland contracted out to these institutions. Sadly, however, it was a failure on the part of Christians. Even though I agree this was the case, and even if the Pope knew about it and did nothing out of deep-seated moral evil (which is rather hard to chalk up to JP II), I don’t follow the reasoning to leaving the Church. Having true beliefs doesn’t imply moral impeccability (as I imagine you agree with Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, but don’t require them to be saints).
Some initial problems here. I didn’t say John Paul II knew about it, I said that this was during the tenure of the Pope. The implications are that he might have known about it. If so, that is troublesome, but Michael’s heart-felt defense of the Pope–as apologetic as it is–neglects the fact that a large number (hundreds perhaps?) of Catholic officials (nuns, clergymen, bishops, and cardinals) had to know about these laundries. They not only knew about it but ran them! While the nuns were eating well, 10,000 women were starving, worked to the bone, many died at these institutions. You cannot keep such a large amount of money (invested in the running of such a facility, along with the logistics of such a large workforce–even unpaid–and the logistics of the nunnery and other officials involved) hidden from the eyes of top members of the church. To think that is beyond naive (hint: it’s willful ignorance).
As for leaving the church, it isn’t just this one thing (the enslavement of women–which is a pretty serious moral crime, on top of being a real criminal act and just a shitty act in general), it is multiple atrocities like this that tested my will and my patience with the church (like the numerous coverups for clergy molesting children, moving them around instead of defrocking them so they could molest even more children, the anti-condom campaigns in Africa where there is a need for repress the growing HIV/AIDs epidemic, various anti-science positions of the church, anti-woman positions of the church, money laundering by the Vatican Bank, some of the largest business deals in Europe and largest investments in real estate in Europe by the church while millions of poor people die of starvation each day, etc…) that have led me to my decision.
Any corporation this corrupt does not deserve a penny from me and certainly is not worthy of my respect. The “deep-seated” evil to which you refer is not just one person, one Pope, or cardinal, or bishop; it is the whole damned institution.
And Ratizinger stepping down is just a testament to his knowledge of these sorts of tragedies. Ratzinger was a micro-manager and someone who had detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the church; he must have, being the head guy in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Now, to be clear, I don’t mean to suggest (as some may misconstrue) that Catholics are bad people. To the contrary, I know this to be untrue. Many Catholics are great people, who think to give to help others and who demonstrate the tenacity to the faith that is commendable. Many clergy are decent as well, some more than others. My contempt is not with Catholics, but with the church officials who perpetuate these criminal acts and moral lapses and those who continue to allow them to happen.
Addendum: Not sure where Michael gets the impression I agree with Dawkins, Dennet, and Hitchens….
Filed under: Belief, Society Tagged: | Benedict XVI, catholic church, Catholicism, child abuse, Magdalene Laundry, Pope, Ratzinger
I think you missed something in what I said. I understand that you are angry, and I understand what you wrote last time. My point is not that the abuse is justified and that nobody (or even no church officials) saw the problem, but that you aren’t grasping who would have been culpable and who wouldn’t. The Magdalene laundries operated in Ireland, with approval of the state and no public outcry until recently. There were in fact very similar state-run and Protestant institutions, with the same conditions. Even though these conditions were known to those in them (and 10,000 to 50,000 people is still a rather limited pool), the knowledge of the barbarity of them was only recently unveiled. They were covered up by those involved, both from the public but also from higher-up in the church. Ratzinger as head of the CDF doesn’t have magical knowledge of everything that happens in the entire million-member Catholic Church, with hundreds of thousands of public and private institutions, especially if his Congregation has no interaction with those institutions like the Magdalene laundaries. The CDF covers orthodoxy of doctrine in theologians and certain kinds of canon law problems when orthodoxy is violated, not charitable institutions run by religious. The Congregation having oversight over the laundaries would have been, if any, either the Congregation of Religious or one of the smaller pontifical councils. Even then, the way supervision works in the Holy See is not immediate. The Congregation of Religious would supervise supervisors, namely the religious congregation in this case. The CDR gets general reports of accounting and activity from religious superiors; they don’t tend to visit personally or even get reports about individual institutions. You are right that church officials had knowledge, but they would have been a different level – the diocese and the religious congregation. They are truly to blame, and it wasn’t until criminal charges were brought that somebody like the Roman Rota or even the CDF to step in (and determine canonical penalties for wrongdoing, not to change the institutions themselves). It’s crazy to say Benedict, Paul VI, or JP II “should have” known. That’s just not how the system is arranged. It’s like saying the President is personally culpable for corporal punishment being used in Jonestown, MS public schools – despite the fact that this happens today and the President’s personal interest in education policy.
Not to beat a dead horse, but my other main point was that I don’t see the move from this, even if it were true, to claiming the institution is unable to hold true positions or that one cannot be a member of it. I understand and could point out many instances of TRUE willful negligence by hierarchical members of the Church – Cardinal Mahony is the most egregious example I can think of recently – or by congregations (including my own, the Dominican Order). But the fact that this exists doesn’t mean that the institution is “broken” – it isn’t a “corporation” in the traditional sense. It is a transcendent religious institution whose primary mission, to teach the Gospel and give the sacraments, doesn’t depend on the moral disposition of its ministers. In some sense, the institution is always and inevitably “broken” and it always requires institutional reform (like the reform of canon law after the Council of Trent, or the changes that continue to happen in canon law). But those institutional reforms don’t affect the core of what it is. And so that’s where I leave my question. If you don’t want to answer it, that’s fine. I understand you probably reject most, if not all, of its theological claims (although I disagree that your interpretation of them is an adequate representation of what the Church actually teaches), but I just wanted to understand what you were thinking and where you are coming from.
Catholics in general may not be all bad people, but as long as they remain members of the Church, they are guilty of sins of omission. Any penny given to the RCC is directly supporting a criminal institution.
In some ways, yes, but things aren’t so simple.
Of course not. Few things in life are simple. But this is a situation that needs to put in stark terms in my opinion. There may be a majority of NALT Catholics, but as long as they don’t leave the Church, they’re abetting evil, no matter how much they want to claim otherwise.
Jens, what complete bullshit regarding the sins of omission thing. Engage rational brain, please.
What sins of omission? You have to not act when you have a moral obligation to do so. My points have all been about who has been responsible for sins of omission. The lay person in China, in the underground church, is not committing any sin because there’s nothing they can or should be doing that they aren’t. Just being a member of the Catholic Church does not involve support of child abuse – to think so is ridiculous. The US government and its agents commit atrocities, but I think one can still in good conscience be a US citizen because membership entails supporting an institution in its aims and goals. I support the goals and aims of the US, and I try to assure that I will bring others to do so as much as I can. I’m not committing a sin of omission when a cop in LA shoots an innocent man – that person is acting consciously outside of the aims of US law and polity. Similarly, when people act uncanonically or even sinfully, they act directly contrary to the stated aims and practices of the Catholic Church. I am a member because I want to be holy and I believe Jesus Christ founded the Church as a necessary means to save sinners. I don’t support and find it offensive to imply being a Catholic involves supporting child abuse.
Pardon?
And who sez I have one?