So, I wonder…

[krikkert]

Originally published at Obiter Dicta. You can comment here or there.

There are people who claim that religion is nothing but bad, and seem to have as a core tenet that all religious people in general, and Catholics in specific, should be permanent apologists for past sins, as well that those of a moderate bent should be permanent apologists for the

Comments

[thewrongcrowd]

That's as good as you can throw it. Personal responsibility is an excellent place to start. Recognition of (not apologia for) is needed for past "sins" (history, condemned to repeat it, etc. etc. etc.) However, continued membership in a group that is currently doing evil can not be sloughed off with, "well, I'm not personally doing x." Identification with and support of the group through membership results in a shared burden for egregious behavior of the group.

Hold you (generic, Roman Catholic/evangelical/$religion/$group) accountable for the Spanish Inquisition or the witch persecutions? Nope. Hold you accountable for (or at least expect a distancing from) the Church's imposition into public law of religious doctrine? Damn straight.

[krikkert]

Alright, please apologise for being an American. ;-)

I will, of course, expect you to be consequent there -- on the issue of public law, the Church is just another lobby group. As such, should be treated the same as any other (batshit insane at times) lobby group.

[thewrongcrowd]

Hmm, since I didn't choose to be American... but for various reasons I don't choose to not be American...

Okay. I hereby publicly apologize for the shit that is foisted off onto the world and masquerades as culture (movies, music, fast food, etc. etc.) and for our hypocritical 'might is right, but we're doing it for you' world politics and for using 90% of the world's energy and wasting a good portion of that and for W. (didn't vote for him, but still...) and for so-called American lager and Disney World, definitely for Disney World. Anything else? ;)

The Church as lobby group analogy doesn't particularly work. Lobby groups are by definition self-interested. They want what they want for themselves (it might screw others, but that's secondary). The Church wants everyone else to want (or at least to have to conform to) what it wants. Different kettle of fish.

[krikkert]

But they both work the same way: Both the Church and lobby groups attempt to change the way society works through laws, laws that will apply to both people who agree and people who disagree. I don't see how an environmental (GreenPeace: Putting the mental in environmental! ;)) lobby group is any different from a religious lobby group there -- the net effect is that of changing society to suit them.

Oh, and American lager is an oxymoron. ;-)

[saminz]

Well put, the crowd :-).

Anyway:
What "club" you join is a personal choice, yes, but it does sort of communicate that you stand behind it, you know? With all its history and current behaviour.

And with churches, that's even more the case than with a political party. Because usually, there's no subscribing to just part of the package.

You're responsible for your own deeds, but also for your choice of membership in organizations.

[krikkert]

Ah, the ancient 'tell me who your friends are'...

Remind me to answer this one in the morning, it's 2AM and I need to be at work at 6:30... Just caught the time! :(

[saminz]

Well, I see your point, of course, but taken literally, the "friend" thing won't work here.

You might be a friend to somebody for a whole load of reasons, and after all, you two will influence each other over the years, change and grow...

A church on the other hand will want your full subordination. Catholics seem to like this "flock of sheep" picture, which kind of says it all.

I really think religion is a very personal issue (or at least spirituality is, since the term religion is so tainted already) and that a big mighty organization does little to help you there. It might offer you this feeling of being one of a kind and a "good little sheep", though, if you're so inclined :-D.

[krikkert]

One of my major issues with Catholicism in general is the labelling, actually -- that Catholic seems to imply 'sheep'. My wife's been a part of the Catholic environment in Norway for a few years now, and although she studies theology she's quite the intellectual (even qualified for MENSA). From her statements, she's never encountered another organisation with such an intellectually challenging priesthood, for instance. I believe there's a difference between the inside and the outside view there. I was married Catholic as well, and the priest made very well sure that I understood what the ceremony implied -- that I would be held to my vows.

The Catholic Church is a (very large) group of people on a common journey to self-improvement. That's the core of it. Do you disagree with this? :)

[voxwoman]

Well if the Law of Moses says that, how come Haman and all his children were executed? (the story of Esther).

I also thought the Pope already apologized for the Inquisition, didn't he?

[krikkert]

Because humans are idiots, prone to fits of rage, and really are not the shiniest, happiest, best creatures of God's green Earth.

The Pope and the Church has "apologised" for the Inquisition, yes, in some manner -- they've apologised for certain incidents (like the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre), but from what I can find, it's usually been worded very, very carefully and there are quite a few weasel words in it.