Church Lady
Seems a certain Catholic moral crusader in New York has been busted handing out "personal blessings" to one of his female parishioners.
Looks to me like the good monsignor has already "gotten to the bottom" of it. And he's 79?! You go, grandpa!
Ahem...
Seriously, though: is anyone actually surprised by this? The modern Catholic church is like an endless self-parody.
A spokesman for the archdiocese, said "we only learned about this last night [Monday], and we have been speaking to Msgr. Clark today to get to the bottom of this," he said.
Looks to me like the good monsignor has already "gotten to the bottom" of it. And he's 79?! You go, grandpa!
Ahem...
Seriously, though: is anyone actually surprised by this? The modern Catholic church is like an endless self-parody.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 16:51
6 Comments:
I think we should see this as a sign of progress among the Catholic clergy. At least this time the person receiving that "special communion" was a woman well into her adult years...as opposed to a 10 year old choir boy. So lift up a chalice of the Blood o' Christ in toast to the Mother Church for a splendid turnaround and an apparent Miracle of ResERECTION on the part of the 60+ year old vicar.
Crys, I can't say I entirely disagree with you. Even though I'm a hidebound atheist, I was raised in the church, (albiet I was one of those horrid Protestants).
The point as I see it, however, is that the Catholic church has steadfastedly refused to adapt to the progress of human society. They are trapped in the mentality of a medieval political power, blithely secure in a past authority that faded hundreds of years ago.
I have no sympathy for the Catholic church, nor any other religion. If they wish to survive--and more importantly, thrive--in modern society, they must adapt. Enforced clerical celibacy is a political tool which has far outlived its usefulness. Maintaining the facade only serves to mock their own professed belief system, and will increasingly lead to media circuses such as this one.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry Crys, I've just never been one of those "society is to blame" types. People are accountable for their actions. The Monsignor is accountable to his actions in schtuping a woman in violation of the vows he took. Personally I think the celibacy thing is silly, but I've got no ambition to join the Catholic hierarchy either, and this guy knew the rules when he took the job. He's not some young fresh faced new Father Clark just out of the seminary afterall. He's a Monsignor, he's been at this for a while. Can't live by the rules? Find another church. That's where the Anglican Church came from afterall...well...more or less. I bet they'd love to have a fellow with his experience and...er...energy level. :)
So Msgr Clark is accountable to his vows, his church and his flock. The PedoPriests are accountable to the law, his vows, his church, etc. The Church leadership who knew about the PedoPriests and did nothing are accountable for that, and The Church (i.e. those of don't vigorously condemn and call for the defrocking or the PedoPriests and demand that their Church actively work to make sure this sort of coverup doesn't happen again) are accountble for choosing to turn a blind eye to that sort of thing.
As to the "we are to blame" bit: To quote an old line, "What you talkin' about *WE* kemosabi?" :) Feel free spoon up as big a bowl of guilt for yourself as you like, friend. But this fellow has no part of any of that stuff. I make my feelings on the matter clear to any that are bored enough to want to listen/read. Beyond that, I regard the church much the same way as a turtle regards a doghouse..."I'm covered, thanks. So how about we just ignore one another?"
Then again...I am The Mad Builder. ;)
What I think is more important is that this priest used his position of religious authority to publicly criticise our "sex-saturated society." This is hypocrisy in the highest form. He is hiding behind his position as a priest and casting out judgement on our society, while he is himself guilty of exactly what he is condemning.
Don't believe me? How about this quote:
"What are you worried about? He's a priest ... an elderly priest!"
That was the first line of defense the accused wife chose. She didn't profess her loyalty or deny any attraction, she hid behind the priest's position.
This is extremely common among religious leaders, and that is the point. No one is being "blamed" for anything, but it is important to expose this sort of hypocrisy in people who are trying to exert their influence over other people. I have no problem with religion, though I have little use for it myself. What I do have a problem with is religious leaders using guilt while hiding behind their authority to appear blameless in an attempt to force others to hold to beliefs that they do not even follow themselves.
The problem with religion is exactly what Crys says, it is a human institution, implemented by humans and made up of humans to influence humans. It is the influence that is the problem. People are responsible for their own actions and I think that it is foolish to blindly follow the teachings of someone who claims that they are being lead by a divine influence. Why does god only speak to these people and not to others? The same problem exists in EVERY religion. We see the evidence of that in Islam as well, where religious leaders use the dissent of their followers to accomplish their own political goals, often in the face of their own religion which is supposed to be a "religion of peace."
You've hit on the core of the problem in a single word, Crys: institution. When a religious belief expands beyond an article of personal faith into an enforced structure, it absconds its pure motives. A good example would be the institutionalization of Christianity by Paul. What was espoused by Christ and what Paul created with the New Testament bear little resemblance to one another.
Monotheistic, deity-based religions such as the Judeo/Xian/Islamic mythos suffer from a fatal flaw: they limit their own adaptation to changing society. This is not a problem that, for example, Buddhism encounters. George Santayana once said that Buddhism sought to cure a sick world with kind medicine, while Christianity sought to purge it with fire.
In any event, the core problem here is that, as Banduar pointed out, hypocrisy is not a valid basis for a belief system. If the Catholic church continues to talk out of both sides of their collective mouth, the only end which awaits them is historical obscurity. Following my own blog's signification, I am completely apathetic to either outcome; it's all pointless in the broad sweep of history. But in the short, limitied view of individual human existence, Msgr Clark is a blatant--and to all appearances unashamed--hypocrite. If the Catholic church chooses to back him in the face of what will almost certainly be damning evidence, then they choose to seal their fate. They've already gone way ahead of the curve by backing proven pedophiles; I can't see their advantage in continuing their course.
Post a Comment
<< Home