Opinion of the Roman Catholic Church

[12th Doctor]

*Sigh*  It's pretty sad to see the level of intellectual dishonesty that people are allowed to get away with when I am not around.

Let's start from the beginning, shall we? 

1)  "The Catholic Church is corrupt!"  Well, yes, it has problems with corruption, not only now, but throughout time.  All organizations are corrupt to some extent.  Anytime you put more than two people together, you are going to get corruption.  People who doesn't like organized religion at all have made the Catholic Church the prime target, simply because it is the poster child for organized religion.  People who are members of a different organized religion are motivated by other things (read: "prejudice").  Both types are hypocrites, unless they live by themselves, in a cave, as nomads... in which case they wouldn't have internet access and wouldn't be allowed to display their ignorance to the world.

2) "But the Church claims to be perfect and free of corruption!"  No, it never has, since the beginning, and it never will... people only assume it does because they misunderstand the idea of an "infallible" Church as some how meaning perfection.  Scandal, corruption, and personal failings have been a part of the Church from the beginning... Judas betrayed Jesus, the Apostles abandoned him, Peter denied him... and the Church doesn't only not cover this up, but claims its authority as stemming through these same people.

3) "Ratzinger is an ultra-reactionary, I always knew this!"  And so, like many other people, you actually don't have a clue.  John Paul II was a pretty reactionary Pope.  People didn't think so because of his great PR, but compared to the four guys who preceded him (including Pius XII) he was fairly conservative.  In comparison, when you look at his actual record as Pope, Benedict XVI has been fairly moderate, but most people don't know that... they don't know enough about Catholic teaching to know what to look for, they just have an opinion with no facts to back it up.  This just goes to show how shallow people are, Benedict never had a chance, because from the time he stepped out on the balcony, it was clear to people that he wasn't "Uncle Fluffy", and did not have the personal charisma of JPII... ergo, he must be this mean, old, conservative man.  The evidence that has come out in the past month or so is far more damning of John Paul II than of this pope, who appears to have been roadblocked in taking major actions by JPII while the head of the CotDoF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Christ

4) "Ratzinger told bishops they would be excommunicated if they went to civil authorities about abuse!"  That interpretation of his orders is popular fiction, perpetuated by people who wanted that to be the truth.  Upon actually having read his directives, it becomes clear that he said no such thing.  Shame on you for assuming it must be true.  I wonder if you would be so willing to simply take such a statement for truth if it were about any other group.  While the Pope did not react with the speed that the outside world deems acceptable, he has made an honest effort since 2001 and into his papacy to try to right the situation.  He made mistakes, and is not denying that.

5) "Thousands of years of evil, and subversion of truth!"  More popular fiction, made all the worse by the recent uber-politically correct view of the Crusades, which is that the Islamic forces supposedly never did anything wrong.  Even in the Middle Ages, the Church backed science, in fact, it was the only institution of learning at the time.  The Church never taught that the Earth was the center of the Universe (that was an Aristotelian philosophy, and was believed by everyone, not a Church doctrine), nor that the Earth was flat, nor was the upper-hierarchy responsible for most of the Inquisitions, killing of Jews, etc.  In fact, the Popes usually tried to stop them.  The Church never tried to keep everyone ignorant, either, quite the opposite.  Like Libertas said, the Cartoon History of the Church is what most people know, because it is easier to understand, and easier to criticize... it also has little relationship to reality.

6) "EVIL!"  Funny, how much time have you spent building children's hospitals, and feeding the poor in the last years?

7) "So, I don't always agree with X political party!"  That just only goes to show how little understanding people have for the situation.  You don't understand, nor can you, the depth of feeling involved here, so don't try.

"Undemocratic!"  The Church has this bizarre notion that democracy doesn't, by necessity, convey moral authority, and often times does just the opposite.  It's one that our friend from Germany, who made the charge, ought to be familiar with.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Supersoulty, do you have a link to the text of said directives, and if not, would you tell me what they said? The charge of course is very serious since it if true betrays an attitude that the Catholic Church is above the civil law. Thanks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.  The charge that he ordered bishops to remain silent, and not go to civil authorities is based almost entirely on a handful of form letters like this one in the Stephen Kiesle case.

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-document-trail-stephen-kiesle#document/p15

The letters were written in a form regarding internal Church matters, but never mentioned anything about civil authorities, and Ratzinger probably never even saw the letters.

One thing that looks worse in hindsight, but that you have to keep in mind is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith was a total disaster when he took it over, because most of the confusion caused by Vatican II had not yet been addressed.  Paul VI had done very little to sort out the mess that had been lingering since the close of the council.  Ratzinger spent the first 15 years he was in there just trying to get it, and the Church, back into order.  He probably wasn't even paying attention to these individual cases.

The other document used by claimants is the official list of procedures for handling such cases, by local bishops which were first published in 1983 and edited in 2001.

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html

It talks about how to handle these problems, internally.  This he certainly did approve, but again it never says not to go to civil authorities, nor does it say that doing so would lead to excommunication... which is ridiculous.

Later, in late 90's, the number of pedophilia cases that were crossing his desk did get his attention.  The Congregation wasn't organized to handle this problem, so he reorganized it and ran a committee to handle them.  He tried to go after alot of people, like Marcial Maciel, but was blocked from doing so by John Paul II, and the asskissing bureaucrats that surrounded him.  Ratzinger started a program of background checks on clergy, which had never been done before.  As a Cardinal, Ratzinger's authority was far less than total.  All he could do was issue directive and hoped that they be followed, and aside from the examples presented, the ones his office did release showed a very strong concern for the victims in these cases.  The Vatican does not move as one object, and even if it did, the staff it has, compared to the number of functions it performs worldwide is pretty small, which is why five year responses to abuse cases were not uncommon before Ratzinger reorganized the office in 2001.

Of course, there was also what Afleitch is really piss off about, and I don't blame him, which is the 2005 document telling seminaries to root out people with homosexual tendencies... Afleitch allows this to cloud his judgment on other matters though, sadly, and thus is willing to believe whatever ridiculous thing people tell him.

Now these are explanations, not excuses.  But anyone who is serious about believing whatever non-sense comes out, and attacking without thinking probably already had their minds made up before this all came out.

[12th Doctor]

3) "Ratzinger is an ultra-reactionary, I always knew this!"  And so, like many other people, you actually don't have a clue.  John Paul II was a pretty reactionary Pope.  People didn't think so because of his great PR, but compared to the four guys who preceded him (including Pius XII) he was fairly conservative.

I'm aware that John Paul II was a very conservative Pope, and I was hardly a fan. Regardless of this, his successor is, in my eyes, a true reactionary. 
From what I know Ratzinger actually was fairly liberal until Vaticanum II and the 1968 movement. I don't know what caused his change of face, but from that on he stood against every single reform, every emancipatory movement.

Benedict never had a chance, because from the time he stepped out on the balcony, it was clear to people that he wasn't "Uncle Fluffy", and did not have the personal charisma of JPII... ergo, he must be this mean, old, conservative man.

That's certainly wrong for Germany, and I think for the whole world. You may have seen this famous headline before. It's from BILD, the German paper with the highest circulation:



"Our Joseph Ratzinger is Benedikt XVI. We are Pope!"

Benedikt was almost a popstar during the first month in office. The World Youth Day 2005 was little more then one great Pope-show. No, Benedikt has had a chance. He didn't take advantage.

The sentence "We are Pope" is of course a perversion of German grammar, by the way.

"Undemocratic!"  The Church has this bizarre notion that democracy doesn't, by necessity, convey moral authority, and often times does just the opposite.  It's one that our friend from Germany, who made the charge, ought to be familiar with.

Everything you say is true. Still I prefer democracy with all it's flaws over moral dictatorship from unelected authorities.  But that is the Catholic's business, not mine. I have no intention to give advice to Catholics how to organize their church. It's just that personally, I prefer a decentralized, bottom-up church.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI were and are both ultra-liberals who exalted the perverse 'spirit of Vatican II' above all else.

As I have expressed many times, I am not a huge fan of Vatican II, but my problem is less with the changes made then how the entire process happened.  If you could, please explain to me one area of doctrine or Church practice, except the Mass (which, other than the "vernacular" format is strongly based off 4th century, Pre-Tridentine masses) that was changed significantly from the course set out by previous popes, by the second Vatican Council.  You can't, because much of what was done by the Council was based on the course set by the previous six Popes, all of whom even the most right-wing "Catholics" recognize as authoritative (except I once saw one guy on the internet, who understood the flaw of the mainline sedevacantist argument and stated his belief that Benedict XV was the first "corrupter" of the Church in this line).  I mourn the loss of the Tridentine Mass, not because I am moronic enough to think it was the "only true Mass" the way most traditionalist Catholics do... even at the time the Tridentine was the standard regular mass, most orders (Franciscans, Benedictines, etc) had their own form that they practiced, and several forms existed prior to it... not to mention the Uniate Rites... but rather because of the beauty of it.  It could have been spared by simply eliminating the Latin language use.  I also don't like what it has done to new Church construction, but that is another matter. 

There was nothing truly revolutionary about Vatican II... people only think there was because that's what they have been taught by other people, because most Catholics only visibly see changes in Church teaching through the Mass, in which everything was changed.  There is a very clear line of thought from the teachings of Pius IX and Leo XIII through the Vatican Council.  The main problem with the Council was that it worked to convince people that there were revolutionary changes made (thus convincing people that its okay to make changes whenever a slightly new social current arises), and there was almost no follow up in terms of explaining or defining what actually happened.  The Church would have gotten to where it is now without Vatican II, though simply doctrinal expression... Vatican II simply made the process far messier, and frankly left the Church disorganized and paralyzed in the face of many recent problems.