xenologer: (human monsters)
xenologer ([personal profile] xenologer) wrote2010-10-27 11:06 pm

Stop Defending the Catholic Church: Day 5

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.

A Suggestion...

[identity profile] motherwell.livejournal.com 2010-10-28 03:29 pm (UTC)(link)
...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...

[identity profile] virginia-fell.livejournal.com 2010-10-28 06:11 pm (UTC)(link)
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?