Michael Gerson has missed the point in his latest article. he attributes morality and the respect of human dignity to the catholic church. all the while referencing terrible things that popes of the past have done, not to mention what clergy of late have done. he claims that catholicism is the moral compass of the world. that it leads the way in caring for the downtrodden and valuing every human life.
i can think of a number of ways to refute that. starting from the beginning, Catholicism is built on Judaism. the only thing original about catholicism is the pope and the that Christ is the son of god. sure theres some different rituals (many of which are just different versions of Jewish ones), some different names and places, but the basics are the same. how can you claim to be the original human rights watchdog when you have copied most of your faith from an older one?
second, as we move through time, come the crusades. crusaders really valued human life as they slaughtered Jews and and Arabs alike for dusty town that none had any real need for. thats not showing much respect for the value of human life. not to mention the papal atrocities that Gerson himself cites.
next we come to the inquisition. i dont think i need to explain myself on this one. just be glad you werent around unless you happen to be catholic.
fast forward to the 20th century. where was the catholic church when Hiltler was taking over Europe murdering and imprisoning millions at a time? why were they silent as Mussolini was Hitler's man in the Mediterranean? maybe i missed that day in history class.
how about the more modern and ever expanding list of child molesters that use their position as a moral and spiritual guide to take advantage of children?
politicians are constatly citing records as to why or why not to vote for a candidate. as Gerson states, the catholic church has been around longer than any nation on earth(he must not be counting China) and therefore has a lengthy record on human rights on which to judge their moral leadership. looking back on it, i cant say that it is impressive. well, not in a good way, anyhow. and they continue to lobby against women in the clergy while the rest of the modern world has given women full rights so long ago the idea that they wouldnt be equal is about as foreign as can be. they also obstruct the right of clergymen to have a wife. i have to say of all requirements of the job, thats got to be the toughest. they claim to have the high ground on birth control and abortion as well. i wont comment on abortion other than to say that medically, i think that doctors need to have that option at times. birth control is a complete misnomer. in reality it is conception control. and in thins age when we are fighting AIDS and other STDs on a world wide scale, lobbying against safe sex practices is just irresponsible.
the catholic church says it has moral authority, but when you look at the record and policy of the church, it is easy to argue otherwise. religion in general, and especially not the catholic church, doesnt have a monopoly on moral teaching. in my opinion thats the parent's responsibility. i was raised Lutheran, but we were never a very religious family. i dont like church. i havent been voluntarily since middle school. i havent done much raping and pillaging lately. i am always troubled by unethical actions. the kindest people that i personally know are not religious if they even associate themselves with any church. i think the idea, no, the belief, that my god is the right god and anyone who believes other wise is wrong plays a large part in the problem. having a faith in the underlying goodness in humanity in general is much more universal and opens the mind and heart to everyone.
catholicism is not the path to righteousness. i can be. but there are many paths. religion with exclusivity clauses like catholicism are frequently paths to false righteousness. that path leads to misguided efforts of conversion like the inquisition and missionary work such as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. i think we are much better off as a human race if we just allow each other live and love and just dont be a dick.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
>"how can you claim to be the original human rights watchdog when you have copied most of your faith from an older one?"
Easily, since the origin of one's faith is seperate from being a human rights watch dog. Surely, you are not argueing that Judaism is the human rights watchdog?
>"crusaders really valued human life as they slaughtered Jews and and Arabs alike for dusty town that none had any real need for."
First, you're judging past events under an ealier level of moral development by a later more refined set of morals. Second, the crusades were a defense against the invading Islamic armies. The peaceful alternative was even more bloodshed.
>"next we come to the inquisition. i dont think i need to explain myself on this one"
Yeah, you do, since I don't believe you know much about the inquisitions other than popular mythology. Most people during the inquisition period wanted to be tried by the Catholic courts as they were more merciful and fair. Perhaps you were thinking of the more murderous Protestant (4th) Inquisition that followed. Seems the Protestants believed their own propaganda.
Real Inquisition
>"Where was the catholic church when Hiltler was taking over Europe murdering and imprisoning millions at a time?"
Much of the Catholic leadership in Germany was in the comcentration camps, being murdered along with everyone else. The Catholic Church did so much against the Nazi's that the Chief Rabbi in Rome converted to Catholicism as a result. Just because your history classes omitted mentioning the Catholic Church doesn't mean that the Church was silent or inactive.
The Nazi's were Christians too: "Hitler was saying much the same things as the Protestant Nazis were saying: that Luther was a great national hero. Keep in mind that in Germany if you were a good Catholic you weren't going to end up saying such a thing. ... But what he had to say about Christianity behind closed doors was that he too esteemed Protestantism as the 'natural' religion of the Germans. Both a national religion and the natural religion of the Germans."
>"how about the more modern and ever expanding list of child molesters that use their position as a moral and spiritual guide to take advantage of children?"
If that were unique to Catholicism you might have a point, but sexual sins cut across both the secular and the religious worlds. Do you hold these 838 Protestant ministers to the same standard? And all the public school teachers?
>"...they continue to lobby against women in the clergy while the rest of the modern world has given women full rights ..."
Nope. No lobbying. Just no authority to ordain women. None of the 22 Catholic Churches can ordain women. Neither can any of the Orthodox Churches.
>"they also obstruct the right of clergymen to have a wife."
Absolutely. None of the 22 Catholic Churches (nor do any of the Orthodox Churches) permit ordained priests to marry. The over 200 married Catholic priests in America were all married before being ordained. Secondly, there is no right to have a wife.
>"they claim to have the high ground on birth control and abortion as well."
Yep. Because from 1930 on, the Catholic Church was the only Church not to endorse artificial birth control or abortion. It is only due to the Catholic witness that evangelicals and Protestant churches have changed their stance on abortion. BTW, the prohibition against abortion is written in the Didache, which dates to the 1st century of Christianity.
>"lobbying against safe sex practices is just irresponsible."
The Catholic Church has always lobbied for safe sex practices like abstinance, which is even more effective and safer than condoms in controlling STDs and HIV. If you are so concerned about HIV and STD's, why are you not promoting the more moral and ethical solution of abstinance?
>"when you look at the record and policy of the church, it is easy to argue otherwise."
No, actually its not. Its easy to think that one can easily argue otherwise, until the truth and facts get in the way.
>"monopoly on moral teaching. in my opinion thats the parent's responsibility."
You're partially correct. Religion is the source of moral teaching. The parents learn what is moral from the Church and teach it to their children.
>"religion with exclusivity clauses like catholicism are frequently paths to false righteousness."
Just because they aren't, it doesn't follow that the Catholic Church isn't. Bit of a logical fallacy here.
>"misguided efforts of conversion like the inquisition"
Again, you might consider reading a good current history of the Inquisition. You really want to believe those Protestant myths, don't you?
God bless...
+Timothy
thanks, for the comment, tim. i love a debate.
i was not questioning the church's ability, but originality. and the Jews are no better or worse than Catholics. in both cases a large number of people are completely missing the point. you cant be a rights watchdog while trampling upon them yourself.
about the crusades- how can you argue for killing in the name of peace? what interest did french and english armies have in the middle east. it was blood for the sake of blood on both sides of the line. ana eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.
inquisitions- yes, lets debate the ruthlessness so that you might say your religious forefathers were less intolerant than mine. i never claimed any religion was perfect, i was refuting the idea that Catholicism is the world's human rights safety net.
nazis- if the Catholic church deemed it appropriate and necessary to engage in numerous crusades over a dusty town in the mid east, how could it not mobilize to take up arms against a true threat? and why are persecuting protestants? i dont lobby for one religion over another, but the idea that you should treat one as you want to be treated and dont be a dick. and if youre trying to make it personal, youve missed youre target: im agnostic.
child molesters- again, not saying that protestants are better. youve gone on a tangent again. keep in mind, i am arguing that Catholicism is not the go to place for human rights defense. and of course i hold anyone who molests to the same standard. and those who abuse their position as a leader are doubly guilty of one of the worst possible crimes against humanity.
"there is no right to have a wife." according to who? and why not? isnt it more productive to live and love than to put in place arbitrary, counterproductive, and divisive rules?
abstinence- not a safe sex practice. thats a no sex practice. yes it is the only sure way not get pregnant or and STD. however, sex is as natural as breathing. just about everyone wants it. its my opinion that deprivation of sex leads to many sex related crimes, but in no way all. we should not teach children that sex is bad or wrong or something to be ashamed of. its something that in most people is a source of joy. its like drugs, it doesnt matter what doctrine or dogma says, people will do it. so lets be enlightened and teach to minimalize risk rather than 'dont.' if all you know is dont, you have no idea what to do.
birth control and abortion- while you may know dogma, you are out of touch with reality. birth control, in actuality, conception control is necessary today. there are infinite negative consequences to the lack of it. teenage motherhood and overpopulation just to name a couple. bringing a child into the world whom you cannot provide for not only is unfair to the child but also the mother and father. a simple pill or a condom can allow a couple to do what they inevitably will without risking their own well being as well as their potential child's. the first century was a different word than today. we, as a nation, once legalized slavery. and that was only 150 years ago. if the world has changed that much in a century and a half, how is a law from two millenia ago relevant? an all out ban of abortion sounds good, but the medical reality is that sometimes its necessary, and until youre put in that spot, i dont think you should be commenting.
if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, ill go ahead a call it a duck. but dont worry, theres plenty of others in the flock to keep you company.
Post a Comment