I was writing a reply to summer in the Vendetta thread but decided to put my thoughts here and cast them more broadly since I think the issue is fundamental to our debates about all religions, not just Catholicism and Mormonism.

Summer took issue with my description of Pope Francis as a "company man," saying that he understandably pursues a moral code based on the "priority [of] preserving the Catholic church at all costs for religious reasons." That is of course correct. He defines his moral mission as protecting and promoting the church.

I start from the same point but reach a different question. If you think of the RCC as a "company," Francis is indeed a company man just as Dallin Oaks is. There is nothing wrong with that assuming you believe the "company" is a moral imperative prior to all other ethical obligations. Eliminating the pejorative in my description, Francis is an institutionalist who thinks that sustaining Catholic preeminence justifies the suffering of individuals.

Summer continues by explaining that Francis's problem is one of perspective and proportionality. "Morality is the bread-and-butter of the church" but "in his effort to preserve the church and the Christian message, he is IMO losing the forest for the trees, at least in the first world countries. What he doesn't see is that by not cleaning his house, he comes off as being morally compromised."

I disagree with that; I don't think the appearance of rectitude is the proper standard. There are in fact two competing visions of morality at work. One is the institutional morality born of the conviction that the RCC must be preserved "at all cost," the other is the individual moral duty to protect the vulnerable. That, in my view, is where the trouble arises. What is one to do when the institutional imperative contradicts the individual moral obligation?

Back to basics. I am a big fan of the moral teacher known as Jesus, whether he was real or not, and of most of what he is said to have taught. And I do not see him as an institutionalist. He was a Jewish reformer who demanded greater personal morality from Jewish leaders; there is almost nothing to suggest that he personally sought to create a distinct religion, let alone a formal religions organization. There is little to suggest he even considered an institutional imperative.

What he did do was emphasize personal responsibility almost exclusively. He singled out children as particularly deserving protection; and he said that a good shepherd would leave the 99 to reclaim the one lost sheep. Combining those two passages, Jesus would never let the interests of the larger group trump the needs of a child.

Which raises the question: at what point do individual sins by Catholic or Mormon apostles, who are equally committed to the notion that their institution is the highest moral good, mount to the point where those men are no longer doing Jesus's work? Can one, in order to preserve the church's prestige, sacrifice children's wellbeing? Can one conceal child abuse and destroy evidence? Can one, in the Mormon context, condemn gay people or tear apart families?

Could one take such institutional morality to its logical extreme, as the Grand Inquisitor in Karamazov did, and kill Jesus lest his quaint focus on the needs of the individual undermine the power of the church and its ability to administer the sacraments and confer salvation? We have outgrown you, Jesus, and can manage on our own.

In my judgment Francis and the Mormon leaders have already killed Jesus. They are doing precisely what he said was morally wrong, what he said was worse than being drowned with a millstone around one's neck. I don't believe religions are ever superior to the morality articulated by their founder. I don't think there is an institutional "hall pass" or "second anointing" that overrules Jesus's teachings regarding sin.

This is obviously an absolutist stance. But it has the virtue of resembling what Jesus taught and it frees us to look on the sins committed by institutions and adjudge them "evil." For me that is easier than trying to decide how many child molesters may become cardinals before God gets really annoyed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2019 02:32AM by Lot's Wife.

I agree, Jesus held a higher standard for religious leaders. He advocated a high way of living, refinement, beauty and validation of the old testament that by default "condemns gay people or tear apart families." It's a great paradox on the one hand he eats with prostitutes (who make a living being perverts), tax collectors, and annoying people regularly, he actually has a conversation with a woman at a well, makes wine for people to get drunk with, breaks the sabbath.

He seems to give a free pass to the pagan (the Romans) can be respectful of them and even their perversions. But when it comes to the actual religious folk. Then there is this really really high standard.

He created this christian church where everyone is supposed to fit in as Paul said (every part of the body has it's purpose, eyes, feet, etc). But because of our differences how can everyone fit in or be welcome? There are lots of people sidelined, This isn't what Jesus had in mind. I'm not sure he thought it through clearly or understood the deep social problems of human beings and how cultures interact over generations. Paul had a great respect for single people and even placed them in positions of leadership. An Unthinkable course of action of Mormonism today.

And so now we have in the Catholic Church a church that elevates celibate people (many aren't in the norm) into leadership and as a consequence there is this centuries of strangeness, and hidden perversions. And because of this unworkable situation there is a subculture of protecting the priesthood. (the cardinals the priests) and scapegoating the children and victims for the greater purpose of defending the Catholic church. I don't think Paul or Jesus had thought these consequences through clearly in the beginning.

I don't know what else to say but Mormonism is weird but Catholicism is weirder.

I suspect most of the priests who took advantage don't actually believe any of the crap they are teaching or they wouldn't be doing what they do.

If Francis was clueless about his close advisor Pell for a long time, I have to wonder why. Francis' babbling about the devil strikes me as, well, not reality based (for lack of a better word). Or maybe he is just an institutional guy who knows he has to say what the sheep need to hear. Ultimately he prioritizes the reputation of the institution. I can't figure out if his humble schtick is a from a naïve believer or someone savvy who was playing dumb. We speculate about this all the time with Mormon GAs. Do they really believe it? Is it really all about the perpetuation of the institution?

Reading through the last thread, the part that bothers me is: Where is the concern for the children? Who cares what percentage of abuse they have compared to anything? How many coverups and rapes will it take to stop apologizing for them? Making excuses for the Church sends a message to the children exactly where the priorities are.

If you are representing God and Jesus and who they are to you, then ANY abuse is UNACCEPTABLE. One episode is unacceptable.

It isn't okay to just say (as my Catholic friends said), "it is unfortunate." IT IS MORE THAN UNFORTUNATE if it happens to you and, to any member of any religion who can't see it as more than unfortunate and leave the religion immediately has a problem in my opinion.

No abuse is okay. NONE. PERIOD.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suspect most of the priests who took advantage
> don't actually believe any of the crap they are
> teaching or they wouldn't be doing what they do.


Completely agree with the above. I have known both clergy and consecrated religious who really do strive for holiness. They take their promises (for secular priests and bishops) and vows (for consecrated religious, priests and superiors) VERY seriously.

> If Francis was clueless about his close advisor
> Pell for a long time, I have to wonder why.
> Francis' babbling about the devil strikes me as,
> well, not reality based (for lack of a better
> word).

I think this comes from him being an Argentinian where many of the Catholics there are more "folks-y" and superstitious in their beliefs and religious devotions over the more intellectual western group. Francis is much more pastoral, where as the popes before him in the 20th century were more from academia backgrounds

Or maybe he is just an institutional guy
> who knows he has to say what the sheep need to
> hear. Ultimately he prioritizes the reputation of
> the institution. I can't figure out if his humble
> schtick is a from a naïve believer or someone
> savvy who was playing dumb. We speculate about
> this all the time with Mormon GAs. Do they really
> believe it? Is it really all about the
> perpetuation of the institution?
>
> Reading through the last thread, the part that
> bothers me is: Where is the concern for the
> children? Who cares what percentage of abuse they
> have compared to anything? How many coverups and
> rapes will it take to stop apologizing for them?
> Making excuses for the Church sends a message to
> the children exactly where the priorities are.

Can't speak for the other posters, but any of my posts have been trying to get my head around not only root causes, but also how it could go on for so incredibly long. It's has caused SO much damage, both to the victims AND their families, as well as the the Catholic church as a whole, those Catholics who believe in it, and all the good priests and bishops who do so much for their people, and the community at large.

There are so many victims in this, and it's not limited to those who suffered the actual abuse.

It's clearly been a cancer for a very long time, and has been allowed to metastasize



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2019 12:48PM by angela.

dagny: "...the part that bothers me is: Where is the concern for the children?"

Yes, this.

As well as concern for all those abused, and their families (as in the case of the Indian Residential Schools in Canada in the '40s right up to the '90s, rife with child abuse and kids who were never returned home, a terrible grief for their parents, due to many deaths from largely unknown causes and use of unmarked mass graves - sounds like a war crime, no?), and the nuns we're just hearing about with the rape and the abortions and it just goes on and on and on.

I can't get over the utter hypocrisy of the preaching of morality compared to the rampant immorality being engaged in. And so widespread. Like a fearsome communicable disease amongst a non-immunized population.

Is hypocrisy one of the seven deadly sins? If not, it should be. Practice what you preach - an adage from my childhood that sounds good to me still. Like, be honourable, in public and private, or shut up.

There is no shame in being outraged at a blatant display of appalling behaviour, conducted over a prolonged period of time, by those who preach and teach about the sublime, who expect morality from their congregants and sit in judgement over them, handing out penance for picayune transgressions while their own conduct is beyond the pale. At what point does your own hypocrisy choke you? For all too many (abusers in positions of power) they haven't reached there yet, obviously.

Outrage, call to action, expectation of recompense - all totally understandable NORMAL reactions.

I think it comes down to being careful about what you hate, because you will become that. The NT gospel did give rise to the concept of the individual, which led to the modern world. Not too shabby. The secular world takes God out of the picture, which may or may not be a problem. Martin Luther King was hardly secular. I think there will always be tribalists though, trying to build walls. Secular tribalists, religious tribalists. Is there a difference?

I wonder if the Mafia was modeled on Catholicism. There were the same institutional structures and demands of obedience, so it was a kind of perverse branch of Catholicism with a don instead of a pope.

Like you I think of Jesus as the moral teacher whether he was son of god or not. Also like many of us he was rejecting a rigid, commandment-bound religion. Christianity today has come full circle to be what Jesus himself was rejecting.

Knowing human nature as I do I have a tough time believing that Jesus was the only person of his day who thought the way he thought. His views were not unique. Jesus got the genes of wisdom and empathy. These are not recessive genes and he had company I am sure. I would guess over the scores of years the bible was written that the persona of Jesus was used by these similar kind people as their own spokesperson. Jesus best words were the views that I find here on RFM from those who have re-thought their religion and their lives. Rejecting blind obedience frees empathy.

The NT was originally a weapon against organized religion. Against institutionalized morality. Now it is used on behalf of institutional morality.

Individual morality is based on thousands of years of humankind participating in reciprocity leaving them knowing what to do instinctively in their deepest recesses. Unconditional love is born of this. It comes from your genes, not, from pulpit.

Institutional morality needs a lot of defending. Enough said.

Lot’s Wife, I haven’t read anything this powerful since Paul Toscano’s “The Sanctity of Dissent.” Beautiful !

Mind if I screenshot?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2019 11:02AM by kathleen.

Of course, Dear Kathleen!

Honestly, I don't think it's that simple: individual morality vs institutional morality. Humans deal both with themselves, individually, and also in groups, as a society. It's not one versus the other, they are both in play at the same time.

It's easy to see the temptation to create an institutional morality as a shield to protect individuals. As you put it LW, the Catholic Church provides sacraments to individuals so the church must continue in order to provide this cosmic service regardless of the corruption of individuals. Similar to "the church is perfect, the members aren't;" JS was a prophet, but he was "just" a man (meaning he was deplorable--but, you know how men are, totally unaccountable...). The generalizing of morality preserves the power of all of the individuals who benefit from that society. Obviously corrupt.

Yet, even so, morality has got a societal component that operates on a different dimension than individual morality. I think we, as a society, need to direct more attention on the specifics of how group-morality should operate.

Okay, three sorts of morality.

One is the individual ethical code that Jesus emphasized. Another is the institutional morality asserted by non-governmental entities that claim exemption from the individual code. This is "ends justify means" thinking and it characterizes the RCC, the LDS Church, and some other organizations.

The third is social morality--or, in more traditional terms, the "social contract" that outlines the relationship between the government and the individual. In some countries social morality is an extreme form of institutionalism: the USSR taught that it could do anything to individuals it wanted because of its historical mission--which incidentally looks like the Catholic worldview on steroids. In the post-Enlightenment West, however, social morality is about the relationship between the state and the individual. The Bill of Rights, for instance, and similar codes in other countries are efforts to limit the state's power over the individual. And where the state/society decides to deprive an individual of her rights (e.g., eminent domain), there are rules that must be followed to render that decision acceptable.

I see the Western version of social morality (the Western social contract) as reinforcing individual morality of the sort Jesus advocated. The driving force behind the attacks on RCC corruption, for example, is individuals whose rights were trampled upon. The means employed in those attacks are the legal and media processes that society has empowered to protect people. In the West, therefore, the social contract often reinforces individual morality. That is why priests, bishops, and cardinals are going to jail.

The RCC and the LDS Church implicitly assert that their mission is so important that it supersedes individual morality, and the state is rejecting that assertion. In that sense, Western social ethics reinforce Jesus's individual code at the expense of large, self-righteous organizations.

I'm not so much thinking of "social contract" forms of a transactional relationship between individuals and groups. I'm thinking more of a group-oriented morality. Here's a concrete example I've been thinking about a lot:

If one asks oneself why are there so many MLMs in Utah, or why is there so much affinity fraud in Utah? The answer could be found in individual failings: over-reliance on trust of authority; projecting supernatural success on "worthy" people; outright greed, delusion, criminality, etc. But there's also a group-morality reason. Many religious organizations out-rightly prohibit any leader of any level from offering investment opportunities to members of the congregation. A member could seek an investment individually, like if the leader were a stock-broker or something, but the leader is absolutely prohibited from soliciting the membership. The LDS church easily could implement the same rule to protect its members, but it won't. I think the church leaders view the members as sheep to be shorn, and justify their view on individual responsibility--caveat emptor. The group mentality is that the church offers its membership as a resource of business opportunities to its leaders, and if didn't, many leaders would have no reason to donate their time. It's a business guild, not a church; and if it didn't work as a business guild, it would collapse. However, the membership individually isn't implicated in the group morality. It's only when the rules covering the group--should individuals in the group be protected from predation; answer, No--is considered, do we see the group-oriented morality as distinct from the individuals and their individual behavior.

The same thing with gossip, social-climbing, or all of the Bednar behaviors described in the other thread, for example. They are all individual issues, but exist only because of a group-wide component that I think also can be described as morality. Morality isn't solely a description of individual behavior.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Back to basics. I am a big fan of the moral
> teacher known as Jesus, whether he was real or
> not, and of most of what he is said to have
> taught. And I do not see him as an
> institutionalist. He was a Jewish reformer who
> demanded greater personal morality from Jewish
> leaders; there is almost nothing to suggest that
> he personally sought to create a distinct
> religion, let alone a formal religions
> organization. There is little to suggest he even
> considered an institutional imperative.
>

LW, don't have time to really think about most of your post at the moment, but I did want to address the above part quickly as it is easy to articulate.

You are right, Jesus (real or not) was not an institutionalist, BUT, (and I expect this is where Francis, and many popes/bishops) he did preach and teach the idea of the Kingdom of God, and a restoration of the Davidic Kingdom (the whole Messiah idea)

So, where you see an institution in the RCC, and the whole Catholic, meaning not just the Roman/Latin rite, but the entire Catholic (universal) church, Catholics see the Kingdom of God, the Mystical Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ (the Church).

So, yours and others, perspective, is different from that of the Pope and the bishops. They see that they are to protect the Kingdom of God (that is why the pope is called the Vicar of Christ).

All that said, this whole abuse scandal, with is cover-ups and completely mishandling has done just the opposite. It's a self-inflicted wound on that idea of "Kingdom". It's tarnished the "Bride of Christ" etc.

Just wanting to point out many of us view it in a secular way, but theologically and dogmatically, that is not how the Catholic Church sees itself.

Hope that makes sense

Hi Angela,

Three points. First, it's difficult to read the original Jesus given the vast reinterpretation of him that began soon after his death. We have two sources on his life: Mark, the earliest gospel, and the lost Q source. Matthew, Mark (the resurrection scene), Luke and John are all reinterpretations of the biographical accounts. The rest of the NT is even further removed, the vast body of Christian literature further still. My point is that if we want to understand Jesus, as opposed to his followers, we should probably limit ourselves to the basic facts about his life and his teachings and de-emphasize the glosses.

Such a reading, secondly, leaves little indication that Jesus was interested in an earthly kingdom such as that of David or what would become Christianity. He disavowed mundane claims when he said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's;" and when asked about the Kingdom of God, he said it has no earthly location: it is neither here nor there. He also said "the Kingdom of God" is within you. That seems to run counter to the assertions of later Christians that Jesus intended to create a universal earthly organization.

Third, you are right that the pope and others choose to interpret their mission differently. That is true. But their beliefs do not justify their actions any more than Hitler's convictions or Mao's ideology justified what they did. Sincerity of belief is not an objective standard; it is not an excuse for immoral behavior.

Jesus's attitude towards the representatives of institutions and institutional morality is clear in what he said about the Pharisees, the hypocrites, the blanched tombs full of the bonds of the dead, the "brood of vipers." There is in his writings nothing that would legitimize the Catholic Church's evident belief that its self-assigned mission justifies the perpetuation of system of abuse and coverup.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
. He also said "the Kingdom of God" is
> within you.

Most scripture scholars agree that is a poor translation (KJV, right?)

It is better rendered "amongst you" or "in your midst"

Yes I am aware about Mark being written first, Q etc. :)

Since I am no expert on Biblical Greek, I can't engage in discussions over poor vs better translations, but certainly they exist. LOL

Yes, but "the Kingdom of God is in your midst" is pretty much the same thing as saying that it is not an earthly power. It is a spiritual reality, even a state of mind.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but "the Kingdom of God is in your midst" is
> pretty much the same thing as saying that it is
> not an earthly power. It is a spiritual reality,
> even a state of mind.


Is it? Or is that how you are interpreting it?

Well, I am certainly "reading" the scripture, and "reading" is a form of interpretation.

But consider the verse: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

He was criticizing the Pharisees and their claims that they were building an actual political kingdom. Jesus's reply seems to be that there is no specific location for the Kingdom of God. It is within, or among, or in the midst of the believers.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I am certainly "reading" the scripture, and
> "reading" is a form of interpretation.
>
> But consider the verse: “The kingdom of God
> does not come with observation; nor will they say,
> ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed,
> the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke
> 17:20-21)
>
> He was criticizing the Pharisees and their claims
> that they were building an actual political
> kingdom. Jesus's reply seems to be that there is
> no specific location for the Kingdom of God. It
> is within, or among, or in the midst of the
> believers.


But you aren't holding yourself up as an expert in Biblical exegesis,am I correct in that?

That is correct.

Isn't this a perfect example of the obfuscation that the RCC and others use to justify actions and blur responsibility.

Does it really matter what their justification is when we are talking about covering up the abuse of children?

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't this a perfect example of the obfuscation
> that the RCC and others use to justify actions and
> blur responsibility.
>
> Does it really matter what their justification is
> when we are talking about covering up the abuse of
> children?

Of course not. I just try to understand why and how it got to this point.

I'm not a black and white thinker. I gave that up when I gave up Mormonism.

In the simplest form of morality, it is about applying force and rectifying misapplication of force. Where force can include withholding and distorting or creating of fake information as well. From there you can generate the ideas of equality, fairness, harm and so on.

One of the defining factors of a state is that they reserve to themselves the application of deadly force. This is as much a selfish preservation protective measure as it is one of societal protection. States and institutions put most of their efforts into perpetuating themselves. And because of their disproportionate size and power to other individuals, distort the application of force in their favor.

Culture and history is often about the exchanges of force and rebalancing of force between institutions the state(s) and the individuals over time.

For many of the above reasons, i disagree with the personhood doctrine as applied to corporations and institutions. At the level of the state, personhood probably offers sufficient t efficiencies that the negatives are outweighed.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the simplest form of morality, it is about
> applying force and rectifying misapplication of
> force. Where force can include withholding and
> distorting or creating of fake information as
> well. From there you can generate the ideas of
> equality, fairness, harm and so on.
>
> One of the defining factors of a state is that
> they reserve to themselves the application of
> deadly force. This is as much a selfish
> preservation protective measure as it is one of
> societal protection. States and institutions put
> most of their efforts into perpetuating
> themselves. And because of their disproportionate
> size and power to other individuals, distort the
> application of force in their favor.
>
> Culture and history is often about the exchanges
> of force and rebalancing of force between
> institutions the state(s) and the individuals
> over time.
>
> For many of the above reasons, i disagree with the
> personhood doctrine as applied to corporations and
> institutions. At the level of the state,
> personhood probably offers sufficient t
> efficiencies that the negatives are outweighed.

Thanks for this. I mean that.