Greta Christina has a review of the movie.
Often I get visitors from the Roman Catholic Church. Many of them have been in congregations where priests have, in some way, abused their authority. A local pastor had a gambling addiction. The bishop had an affair. A priest in Croton had molested young boys. They say to me, “I love God and the church. I just can’t be in that family any more.”
Andrew Greeley once argued that the fundamental problem: pride and secrecy. The priests don’t listen to the people; the bishops don’t listen to their priests, and the holy see doesn’t even listen to its bishops. People can report to priests; priests can report to the church. But as long as the imperial church places itself above the rule of the state, without being held accountable, it will continue to harm people.
I do have a counter story. In the early 1940’s a priest in my current church exposed himself to a young boy. He argued it was sex education. There was a local controversy. The wardens and half the vestry wanted to excuse the priest, but the bishop stepped in and in a letter argued, “what if it were your boy?” The bishop let the state handle it, and upon their verdict defrocked the priest. The bishop wrote a letter to the priest: “Our prayers are with you. But you have done irreparable harm to the family and to the church.” The case went to court. The bishop took the evidence, and defrocked the priest. Thus, my experience has been of bishops doing the right thing, even when parishioners themselves were convinced otherwise. This may have been the exception, but it does demonstrate that the church is a wide organization.
I am familiar with the movie, but I know the story. I get it a lot. I hear from people fleeing the church. Even my uncle, a Roman Catholic, joked with me after telling him about a break-up I’d had: “you aren’t the kind who likes little boys, are you?” He laughed.
“Heh. Funny.” I replied. I did not think it was funny.
Ms. Christina is an Atheist, and is a good representative of a particular sort. She isn’t content to be a secularist or a humanist. Atheism is the true way of understanding the world. Religion is for idiots. She carefully unpacks the inconsistencies of particular propositions uttered by the religious.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but she does it with passion.
I have not seen the movie, but I want to press her a bit on her review.
First, she learned the entire nature of the church from a movie.
Yes, a movie. Not much reading on the early fathers, or Aquinas, or even a church historian.
Here is what the church is about: When you teach people — especially children — that the only way to God and Heaven is through the rites of the Church, administered by Church authorities? When you teach people — especially children — that Church authorities have a special connection to God and goodness that ordinary people don’t have? When you teach people — especially children — that defying the Church and its earthly representatives will condemn you to permanent, infinite burning and torture?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this way of making an argument. If you want to example the insanity of American Foreign policy, look at Cuba; if you want to learn about graft, just examine how stadiums get built. We learn from lenses. And this is Christina’s lens. Is it the right one?
While she turns to the harm that religious institutions do, I wonder how empirically different it is than the eight years of mismanagement and real harm done to the world by the previous political administration. Were they religious? Not really. The religious right were their electoral pawns. Most of the neo-conservatives weren’t Christian. She seems, however, to think the church behaves differently than other institutions that are shaped without checks and balances.
It’s a fairly pedestrian view: our culture hates sex and children. Blame the Catholic church! It just seems a little more tawdry than when it’s done in a public school or the boy scouts.
What does the church really say about itself, and what its intentions are? I learned it was motivated by a love of the world and all people, not merely political power. It may be that the two are intertwined, and that it is difficult to tell one from the other. It is a view that can, and should be challenged. But all the evidence should be laid out, not just the ones of the detractors.
Arguing she understands the true maliciousness of religion through this movie is a lot like saying we know a lot about Germany by watching movies by Leni Riefenstahl. Or, saying that Stalin is a good example of Atheism in power. Is it absolutely true? Probably not. Did Germans participate? Are there atheists who would like to round up the dull and send them to Siberia? I’m sure a few. As she condemns the entire church, rightfully, for the coverup, there is an insinuation that somehow sexual abuse is worse because the church is the church.
Greta follows plenty of Roman Catholic priests already critiquing the institution. However, she overreaches in arguing that it represents the entirety of religious work, or that it finally damns the religious experience. There is no doubt that the secrecy and lack of accountability destroyed the lives of many. Where as she might say it is all too religious. I would argue, it is all to human. Alas.
deepen and encourage reverence and respect;