The Catholic Church in Britain (England?) is currently undergoing a similar crisis to that in Boston (ie. it’s been made public that senior priests/cardinals knowingly kept kiddy-fiddling members of the priesthood in positions of authority and failed to report the offenders).
The Catholic Church has problems of this kind in a number of countries.
But, then, so do non-Catholic churches. The Anglican churches in Canada and Australia, for example, have had similar problems. And non-religious organisations (such as sporting organisations) in various parts of the world have such problems as well.
Arguably, the Catholic Church is better equipped to survive something like this than smaller national or regional churches, and it is certainly better equipped than sporting bodies to survive. And, as pointed out above, it has survived much more profound challenges in the past.
Was the Catholic Church not in a much stronger position during past crises though? I would have thought that its waning political influence (in Europe at least) and decreasing moral authority* would have made it a lot less able to ‘weather the storm’ than in previous centuries…
*[sub]I believe that Ireland is a good example of both of these points?[/sub]
The sex scandels will likely have a profound effect on the Church in the US. Whether the long term effect will be ruinous or beneficial I won’t claim.
A witness deposed in a civil trial must answer questions on almost any subject under the sun. Fact, opinion, discussions with others etc.
The most SINsational(sic) testimony will appear on the 24-hour cable channels, fodder for late night comics, rap videos and cocktail napkins. No one can predict what effect this will have on the Church, its members or our opinion of either.
Well, it’s not difficult to think of historical cases in which the Catholic church was not just deprived of all political influcence and moral authority, but was completely wiped out as a presence over very large areas. The Lutheran reformation led to the Catholic church simply disappearing in much of Germany and the Baltic states, and in the whole of Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. It was hundreds of years before it had even a token presence in these countries again. The English reformation led to the Catholic Church being expropriated and oppressed in Britain and Ireland, and reduced its adherents in Britain to a small percentage of the population. And so forth.
And these were profound challenges not merely in the practical effect they had, but in the nature of the challenges they raised to the Catholic Church. The current child-abuse crisis, horrifying as it is, at most allows us to say that many powerful churchmen, and the Church as an institution, have betrayed the ideals which the Church espouses, and that the Church’s own principles have been subordinated to the material and organisational interests of the institutional Church. These are serious matters, but they are not attacks on any of the core beliefs and ideals of the Church itself, such as were made in the various Protestant reformations.
In my view the current crisis is by no means the most serious the Catholic Church has ever faced, either in terms of its practical effects on the Church as an organisation or in terms of the challenges it raises to the beliefs and mission of the Church. If earlier crises have not led to the destruction of the Church, this one is not likely to.
As for the Church’s response to the crisis, I predict: they will go on the offensive.
I don’t know how, but they shall do so. Perhaps by blaming the victim, or by blaming the secular society that is daring to hold the Holy Church accountable for its actions, or by some un-gueesed-at means, but they shall certainly do so.
From dictionary.com :
Certainly that group of people who followed ‘The Way’ under the leadership of Peter, Paul, and others can fit somewhere in the above definitions?
They certainly were a body of assembled people, and by the way they constantly argued over their beliefs (Gentile to Jew to Christian, or just Gentile to Christian, for example), I would say they were certainly denominational. And the Christian part goes without saying.
There were also 1st century groups like the Ebionites and the Nicolaitians which were regarded as heretical by the groups that survived and are considered small-o orthodox today.
I’m interested, Aide, in what you meant by the post that’s developed such critical comments. Was it your intent to imply that a “church” cannot exist without government recognition? Or what?
While I still respect the Catholic Church, I disagree with their interpretation of scripture which gives the church the infallibility to decided what is cannon (sp?).
That said, if you agree with Catholic interpretation, the Church is functioning just as it should based on human fallibility. Any time we place one human above another (ie. A Catholic Priest) and he/she commits some sort of travesty against society (molestation etc.) we then go back and question the Church as a whole. The Church gave them their position, why did this happen? Humans make mistakes! I am not surprised that people are looking at recent events and are worried that the Catholic Church may fall… IMHO I think they fell a long time ago, but in reality, the recent decline in the Church’s moral standing is anything but surprising!
As for the “Church” as defined earlier, the Church can’t completely fall until there are less than two gathered together in Jesus Name. At which point he/she would become “the Christian” and then upon his/her demise, the rocks would cry out God’s praises! Personally I don’t see any of that happening in the near future.
Amen.
In the unintended consequences department, the recent scandals will only further ease the way for those evangelical fundies who are poaching souls in Latin America and elsewhere in the third world.
RCC as saviour of the Third World’s souls? That’s a novel thought for the current times - the Conquistadors (sp) were convinced that they were “saving” the heathens by raping, torturing, and murdering them, but not only have thier methods been discredited (except of Junipero Serra, who began the genocide of the local indians, and is now being promoted to sainthood), but the concept has, AFAICT, also fallen out of favor.
Canon, with one “n”, is the correct spelling. Correcting spelling is a smug thing to do, but there is a question mark there. Consider the question answered. May I be spared the wrath of Gaudere’s Law.
The Catholic Church is doing very well in Africa lately. Lots of converts. They may even take the next pope from amongst the bishops there. I should say that a giant worldwide organization with immense resources, dedicated to charity and helping the poor, would be a pretty good thing to have down in Africa. Just my opinion, I guess.
So it might be hard to think of that in terms of past history, I think the present situation is rather different. The Conquistadores themselves had few illusions about what they were doing. It was “god, gold and glory”, but the gold was first and foremost in the minds of the soldiers. Also, the conquest of the Aztecs took place in 1521, a mere 31 years after the completion of the reconquista, in which Spain had finally driven off the Moorish invaders who had occupied them for centuries. So they were riding high with confidence and a little bloodthirsty.
Correct me if I’m missing something, but how exactly is that particular to Catholics?
Oops, as you can probably guess everything after “from Dictionary.com” was not, as it was his post.
The following should be there. (stupid hamsters…):
Church
n.
- A building for public, especially Christian worship.
- often Church
a. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
b. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
c. A congregation.
Congregation
n.
- The act of assembling.
- A body of assembled people or things; a gathering.
a. A group of people gathered for religious worship.
b. The members of a specific religious group who regularly worship at a church or synagogue.
I do not think that we’ll see the collapse of the Catholic Church in our lifetimes, or at all. There’s still folks out there worshipping the various Greek and Roman Gods and Goddesses, plus people claiming to worship Dieties older than those. So we’ll no doubt see the Catholic Church continue on for at least the next hundred years or so. However, if these scandals continue, you can expect to see the power of the church diminish. Certainly, the next Pope can expect to be handed an awful lot of nagging questions. If he’s a smart man, you can expect to see changes in the church as great as those it underwent during the Reformation. If not, well, expect more of the same.
Gaijin isn’t saying that the definition is particular to Catholics. He’s just using it to dispute the assertion by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide that no church existed before Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Empire.
Gaijin is right. A church or churches plainly did exist before Constantine. Moreover, FWIF, local and regional churches in communion with the Church in Rome did exist, so the “Roman Catholic Church” (i.e. the collection of local churches in communion with the Church in Rome) does predate Constantine.
Bearing in mind, then, that the Catholic Church is doing so well in the third-world, what are the chances of it becoming a third-world religion and falling victim to its own practice of preying on the desperate and needy?
I thought they weren’t going to be too worried about that. Its the second largest landowner in the world after Mcdonalds, IIRC (I think it was in Fast Food Nation).
They can raise funds if they really need to.
It’s already a third-world religion, so far as weight of numbers goes, and has been for some time. According to this site http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html as of mid-1995 Africa, Asia and Latin America accounted for about 612 million Catholics (out of about 968 million worldwide).
I’m not sure what the second part of the post is trying to say.