Stop Defending the Catholic Church: Day 5

[xenologer]

Day Five: Apologism Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

I know there are still people reading this--if they haven't defriended me over it--who insist that the real intolerance here is mine, that the real bigotry, hatred, and harm comes from compiling these links and not from the organization whose actions have been reported on. These people are apologists, who will say and do anything to defend their church because that is what they have been taught they must do. Is it loyalty? Is it fear of being cut off from salvation without the church? I don't know, you tell me.

But here's my problem with this sort of apologism. When someone says, "A priest molested me as a child and shamed me into silence," apologists are the ones who say, "Yeah, but not all priests are like that, so try to express your pain in a way that doesn't make Catholics uncomfortable." When someone says, "I was locked in a workhouse and assaulted physically and sexually when I wasn't actively engaged in forced labor," apologists are the ones who say, "That's really sad honey and Imma let you finish, but the church does a lot of charity work and I'd like to derail this conversation to talk about this other thing for a while." When someone says, "Scientific journals have criticized the RCC for their habit of lying to at-risk populations about AIDS," apologists are the ones who say, "Yes, but a condom is just like a cigarette filter! What do doctors know about epidemiology that the College of Cardinals doesn't?"

In short, apologists are the ones who take a conversation that makes them uncomfortable and put their own feelings at the center of it so that rather than talking about the victims of the RCC's wanton callousness, racism, and unvarnished cruelty... we're talking about how sad it is that victims' advocates hurt Catholic people's feelings by pointing these things out. The real problem with apologism is that when you come into this discussion defending the Catholic church, what you are really saying is that you don't like us talking about harsh realities and would rather we discuss a comforting fantasy. Well, you can save that horseshit for church where it belongs. This is the real world.

In the real world, the Catholic Church probably hates you. Stop defending it like a battered wife who's sure her husband really really does love her, he's just got a funny way of showing it and you're sure that if you stay and show the church love and don't make trouble and be everything it asks you to be, it'll understand what it's been doing to you and everything will turn out like the RCC promised you it would be.

It's pathetic. Stop it.

If you missed it, here's Day One: The Church Hates Gays, Day Two: The Church Hates Women, Day Three: The Church Hates Africa, and Day Four: The Church Loves Child Rapists.

Hope you've enjoyed my blog series. This is a topic I've gotten tired of hashing over again and again and again, and now at least I have something I can just link to people when I'm too lazy to deal with the same regurgitated apologism. Feel free to do the same, if you're so inclined. Just link back to me so that I can pat myself on the back and feel useful.

Love, peace, and suchforth,

me.

Comments

[silveradept]

To answer the question above, at least partially, yes, it is a fear that one will be cut off from the heavenly reward after life because criticism of the Church in these kinds of ways is going against the Bishop of Rome, who is utterly infallible when he speaks about doctrinal issues. It's basically asking for excommunication, and in some cases, it's supposedly automatic, without any bishop or priest ever needing to officially say that you're out.

Some of it is also loyalty, as once they've invested in their religious belief for long enough, it's very traumatic to leave. And some part of it is just denial, wanting to say "no, those people doing that aren't Catholics, Catholics only do good works and help people" and deny that it's turtles all the way down (or up, as the case may be).

[xenologer]

Seems like a very frightening position to be in. If you want the church to continue offering you salvation, you have to turn a blind eye to a lot of cruelty (something that, particularly when it comes to cruelty against children, Jesus was really clear on the consequences of).

Believing that the organization which controls your access to divine grace demands in payment that you damn your soul by excusing all this... that's a pretty wretched and unhappy spot to sit in, which probably explains why a lot of Catholics just try really hard to believe that the abuses aren't happening. Wishing that was true is almost as good as having it actually be true, right? Right? =/

[silveradept]

I don't know that it's pretending they didn't happen as much as it is the apologetic defense you mentioned above - pedophile priests are sinners, sure, but that's just a mistake they've made, on the whole, they're great people and eminently qualified to lead Catholics to salvation. Everyone sins and falls short of glory, so we need to be willing to forgive them of their offenses if we want to be forgiven of ours.

There is a lot of cruelty going on, much of it sanctioned firmly by the current Bishop of Rome, who wants to move the Church back toward condemnation and away from a more "accept the sinner, reject the sin" attitude fostered by the previous occupant. Not that he budged on any of the issues you've highlighted, as far as I remember, but he was much less hard-line about it, and that made him a more popular and kindly figure.

One point of interesting note, though, is that American Catholics are weird compared to the rest of the world when it comes to the severity of their doctrinal following - they're much more likely to use the forbidden birth control things, they are often okay with promoting their use as a curb to HIV-1, and some of them are much more open about the possibility of having gay people worship with them. They still hate women pretty firmly, but I sometimes wonder if that's more out of tradition than of belief. And they're the ones most likely to have exposed and come forward about priestly abuse.

If there's going to be reform coming to the Catholic Church, it will probably originate in America, by my guess. Of course, that may be me being an ethnocentrist, so take with appropriate salt.

[nekodojo]

Thank you for posting these. It's an incredibly important conversation that should be had, and shouldn't be drowned out by people made uncomfortable by it.

"what you are really saying is that you don't like us talking about harsh realities and would rather we discuss a comforting fantasy. Well, you can save that horseshit for church where it belongs. This is the real world."

This paragraph makes a really important point... but let me suggest that it would be made just as well without the last two sentences, which seem more inflammatory than inspiring or informative. If the point is that "You have a duty to have important conversations even if they make you uncomfortable", and you really intend that appeal to be heard by actual church-goers, it doesn't help to tack on "Oh and your church is pretty much horseshit". It kind of makes your message unavailable to the people you want to influence: the smart and brave people who do go to church and might be able to speak out.

Your previous post about the Finns was way more effective in this direction... it seemed to be all about encouraging people that they *can* criticize the church for its behavior, even if they are dedicated to it and are not going to stop believing the entire faith. In fact, you could make the complete opposite point from the horseshit comment... you could make the case that it is exactly *because* of their core beliefs that they have a responsibility to stand up for those who are hurt and killed by bad behavior of the current church leadership.

Anyway, thanks again for the series and take care.

[xenologer]

I appreciate the comment, and I will admit that I gave more than a second and even a third thought to that particular line.

I understand that people are easily offended when somebody says that their most dearly-held beliefs are just wishful thinking. Whether we're talking about beliefs in the literal transformation of the Eucharist, or their belief that the Roman Catholic church can do no wrong, saying that is going to raise some hackles.

The reason I did it anyway is that I've learned from talking about feminism, from talking about racism, and from talking about homophobia that there is no way to tell someone that they're living in a fantasy land which causes grievous harm to innocent people that will not piss them off. I would give concerns about the offendability of Catholics reading this more weight if I thought there were a way to make this point without rubbing them the wrong way.

I'm really not sure there is, though. When my blog series is about how the RCC is such an unreformably degenerate and destructive organization that it is not even worth defending, I don't know how to properly couch it so that I can seduce Catholics who need to hear this into actually paying attention to it.

[matrexius.livejournal.com]

In short, apologists are the ones who take a conversation that makes them uncomfortable and put their own feelings at the center of it so that rather than talking about the victims of the RCC's wanton callousness, racism, and unvarnished cruelty... we're talking about how sad it is that victims' advocates hurt Catholic people's feelings by pointing these things out. The real problem with apologism is that when you come into this discussion defending the Catholic church, what you are really saying is that you don't like us talking about harsh realities and would rather we discuss a comforting fantasy. Well, you can save that horseshit for church where it belongs. This is the real world.

You are awesome.

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

*points* that.

[x-eleven.livejournal.com]

The real problem with apologism is that when you come into this discussion defending the Catholic church, what you are really saying is that you don't like us talking about harsh realities and would rather we discuss a comforting fantasy. Well, you can save that horseshit for church where it belongs. This is the real world.

The real problem is that the Magisterium must be seen as infallible. Take this, for example:

"When someone says, "A priest molested me as a child and shamed me into silence," apologists are the ones who say, "Yeah, but not all priests are like that, so try to express your pain in a way that doesn't make Catholics uncomfortable."

These things happen, and you will have bad apples is any organization. The problem is that to be a good Catholic, one can never place the blame on the hierarchy that let it happen, covered up for that bad priest, and thereby enabled the sexual predation to continue. One can not admit: They were wrong, they did a bad thing.

Were that not the case, this sort of behaviour would not be tolerable. Likewise, the problems with exploiting what amounts to slave labour. If the hierarchy says it's a "holy endeavour", then that's what it is. The Magisterium can not fail.

Of course, that idea is nonsense. You've got fallible humans involved, and things are going to get screwed up. The question is: how are you going to fix it, and make sure it doesn't happen again?

That's the one question you're not supposed to ask.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

As I commented on DW, it seems like a very frightening position to be in. If you want the church to continue offering you salvation, you have to turn a blind eye to a lot of cruelty (something that, particularly when it comes to cruelty against children, Jesus was really clear on the consequences of).

Believing that the organization which controls your access to divine grace demands in payment that you damn your soul by excusing all this... that's a pretty wretched and unhappy spot to sit in, which probably explains why a lot of Catholics just try really hard to believe that the abuses aren't happening. Wishing that was true is almost as good as having it actually be true, right? Right? =/

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I cry bullshit on the intolerance being yours

The intolerance is from this hateful organiosation - and the endless endless endless defence of it. The endless excuses we make for it. The endless looking the other wya and the endless people who remain a part of it, supporting it with money and presence and numbers - who completely overlook the damage it does and the pain it causes

A Suggestion...

[motherwell.livejournal.com]

...apologists are the ones who say, "That's really sad honey and Imma let you finish, but the church does a lot of charity work..."

Next time someone says that to you, just ask him this question: "How many more children have to get raped before the Church's evil outweighs the good? Got a specific number here? Or at least a range? A formula for calculating this number? I mean, 'balance' is about quantities, and if you're making a 'balance' argument, didn't you think about this in advance? You didn't? Why not?"

Re: A Suggestion...

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

I have done that, actually, and never get an answer. This is what I generally ask:

How many 'individual cases' of church officials perpetrating and enabling child rape does it take for that to reflect on the organization? Is that more or less than it would take for a secular private school? Is that more or less than you'd allow for a charity working with poor or disabled children? Is there any point at which you'll hold the RCC as an organization accountable for the actions of its steering members? Or is what you really mean to say that they cannot possibly be bad because they're a church and damn all evidence to the contrary?

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

Cheers again. I will be linking this. Thank you.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

*applause*

I have really enjoyed (well, that's not quite the right word, but you know what I mean) this series, and I will likely refer to it. Well done!