I accept that religion is a very personal and thus subjective thing.
So, yes, this all makes sense. I do now understand what the Catholic church does for you and particularly how it helps you in times of need and makes you more mentally whole.
So with that said...(and I think YOU know what's coming)
I'm agnostic. I am not religious. Though I do, as stated above, appreciate how religion could provide value to people. I TRY not to be judgemental of people who are religious so long as they are not harming me in any way.
So my experience with the Catholic church is based on attending church as a child, attending church with my wife and her family (until my wife chose to leave recently) and reading about it in the media.
At this point, you and I are pretty much in the same boat. I don't consider myself "religious" in the
slightest. I understand religion, and I've studied it extensively. Hell, I wanted to be a priest when I was a kid. But I wouldn't call myself religious these days; not by any stretch of the imagination..
In Orlando, we attended a Catholic church that I had a largely positive experience with. The masses were positive. There was a family environment. They had huge festivals that made a ton of money for great causes. 10/10 experience.
Here in PA...0/10 experience. All guilt, all day. Boring services. It was one of the dioceses that was caught for molestation. Everything is about the church. Not about God.
That's unfortunate, but... just as I wouldn't hold it against an entire race of people because of my experiences in say.. the South; I wouldn't hold it against an entire religion because of my experiences in a particular part of the country -- especially a part that is big on worshiping the Church as an institution rather than actually practicing the religion itself using the Church as a vehicle to do so.
My general impression of Catholicism is much closer to the church here than to the one in Orlando. The arbitrary rules about gay marriage that aren't in the Bible, that priests aren't allowed to get married, that non-Catholics can't take communion, and above all the sexual abuse cover-ups.
So let's go through these...
It's quite true the Bible says nothing about gay marriage and the Church seems to lag behind civil institutions in this respect. But do I condemn the Church which is based on a book that goes back 2,000 years as much as I condemn the government? No. Why? Because the Church is a conservative, slow-moving, slow-to-change institution itself.
We
just recognized gay marriage as a right of all people in this country; where we are supposedly free and liberal minded? We still tolerate homophobia, by and large, as a society; particularly within this country. It is still a very large part of who we are, and it is a literal evil that needs to be excised.
So yes, the Church is wrong when it comes to gay marriage... but I understand why it hasn't changed yet, and I don't dismiss it as an organization or institution for good because of this. I, instead, assign ignorance to both the parish and the parishioner in this regard... because, when there is a large enough outcry of people demanding change, the Church, as it has historically, will change. But for the time being, yes, they are wrong - and I would understand boycotting them because of this.
Now, with respect to the other two concerns; I'm going to take a contrary viewpoint here.
1) I do
not believe priests should be either sexually active
or married. I'm actually very much against the idea.
The arguments for an end to clerical celibacy are generally centered around a belief that it would (1) somehow end child abuse, (2) cause more people to become priests.
Addressing both of these arguments for a moment...
I would state that chastity and celibacy does not beget pedophilia. You could not remove me from sexuality and somehow convert me into a pedophile. This belief presupposes that priests exist in some cloistered world where they can't go outside, dressed as a normal individual, and pick up a hooker. It conflates pedophilia with normal sexuality and sexual desire, and assumes that celibacy somehow leads to a mental disorder where a person will predominantly target children - to which, there is no evidence that this is the case at all. By contrast, it is more likely true that people who have a predilection for such things are likely drawn to the Church (or any profession) because of the access it affords them to children in private.
So with that said, I reject the notion that having priests who are sexually active would somehow significantly mitigate child abuse. That just makes no rational sense to me if we accept the premise that the desire to specifically
rape children is not something someone just decides to do like getting up and brushing your teeth; but is instead, caused by a more innate and physiological and/or mental disorder.
Getting to the second rationale, that this would increase the number of people wanting to become priests; well, I cannot argue against that at all. As I've said before, I wanted to become a priest; until I realized the sacrifice that I would have to make, realized how much I really liked fucking, and that I wouldn't be able to do it and live with the decision. This doesn't make me respect the decision to become a priest any less; in fact, it's just the opposite.
To be a priest should require a great deal of sacrifice and commitment. Moreover, we should expect a priests obligations and devoting to be to God, His Church, and his parishioners; first and foremost. Adding a family to this complicates things, because a man (or woman) will generally prioritize their children and their spouse before any person outside their immediate family. Furthermore, the inherent cost of raising a family would become a significantly higher added cost to the parish and the Church itself... Where does this additional money come from?
So to me, while I agree that it would likely make more people want to become priests; I disagree that this is a desirable outcome if it lowers the bar for entry into the priesthood by abandoning the sacrifice and commitment that comes with celibacy and complete personal devotion to the Church.
Now with all of that said; are priests generally wonderful people? In my experience.. priests are just like anyone else you'd meet on the street.. Some are very kind; some are assholes. A very close friend of my wife and her husband went to get counselling from a priest and from what I understand the man was completely unreceptive to them. He had no understanding of their marital problems, couldn't help them, and admitted as much. Why he was a fucking priest I have no idea...
By contrast, when I was a child, a priest basically saved my life. When I experienced my first run-in with extreme vitriolic and violent racism at a Catholic school; it was the Church and the old Irish priest that ran it that defended me and made me feel like a human being and not something 'other.'
So everyone has different experiences in this regard, and I understand there's a shit-ton of very well-placed anger directed at the Church for the abuse scandal... and rightfully so.
And lastly, a non-Catholic cannot take communion because Catholics don't just take communion. I think you might be conflating the Protestant practice of communion with the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist.
Catholics take the Eucharist (communion) quite seriously.. outside of baptism, the Eucharist is the most sacred practice and ritual within the Church. It represents the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ; or, in other words, the literal
essence of God himself. In order to receive this sacrament, one must be in a state of "communion" with the Church, and also a state of Grace with himself and God. In order to define such a state, generally speaking, one must not be in a state of sin; or in other words, a state that is tarnished by sin.
To put it as short as possible; you must be
pure to receive the Eucharist.
Now, with respect to the rites generally dictated by the Catechism and the traditions of the Church; it is not true that non-Catholics are completely forbidden from receiving the Eucharist. They can, just as they can and do receive other sacraments (usually at times where a person is near-death, or there is no other church, or partial communion exists). The reason it is not permitted in general mass for non-Catholics is because it would be pointless, and would generally lessen the meaningfulness of the rite itself.
So what do I mean by this...
Well, for one, if you are not Catholic,
why are you attempting to receive the Eucharist?
If you are non-Christian, then you must be baptized before receiving the Eucharist.. If you really want to have communion, get baptized, and have communion.. If you disagree with this, why are you trying to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church to begin with?
If you are Christian, yet non-Catholic, then are you sure your religion is even compatible with Catholicism when it comes to the Eucharist?
And if you are Christian, yet non-Catholic, and your religious denomination is in communion with the Roman Church, then you're more than welcome to have communion and receive the Eucharist... Go for it.
Moreover, these rules apply to Catholics just as much as they apply to anyone else. I've embarrassed my wife more than once by not receiving communion because I knew I could not really considering myself in an ethically pure state; I was just in church so that I wouldn't hear her mouth... but that doesn't mean I'm going to receive the Eucharist, and if I did, who am I trying to fool? Myself? Nobody there is counting my sins but me, and no one is required to believe this is real, except me.... So what's the fucking point?
See where this goes?
The Eucharist is as much a ritualistic act that binds all Christians (Catholics and others in communion with the Church), but it's also an expression of faith... If you don't believe, what's the point?
I can't imagine confessing to a Catholic priest given the likelihood of his having taken part in that hypocrisy. It makes my skin crawl.
I don't look at every priest and project such horrors onto them... I think that's a bit too far. If they were complicit in the scandal then hopefully they'll get what's coming to them.
Outside of the context of child abuse though; we're all hypocrites and sinners... One doesn't confess to a priest because he thinks the priest has any right to judge him; he confesses to him so that another man can hear him say, aloud, what he did. The purpose is to be both cathartic and therapeutic as well as psychologically and spiritually healing.
This, again in the context I used previous, should be looked at the same way as 'confessing' to your psychiatrist. It should
not be looked at as confessing to say your mother, or to a further extent, God.
With all that said, you are obviously wise enough to understand I am not criticizing you or your faith but rather the people who have damaged the reputation of the religion.
As odd as this sounds, I don't really like the word "faith," as faith essentially requires the absence of rationality.
I don't consider myself a man of faith, for what it's worth. That's definitely a bit beyond my mental capability.
I know this sounds weird given I've just gone on sounding like a classic Catholic apologist; but, my personal beliefs are more rooted in science than in faith.
I am curious as to how you reconcile this problem.
Hope this post answers some of these questions.
