Roman Catholic Church Child Abuse Scandal

I suppose that most people must now be aware of the crisis affecting the Roman Catholic Church at the moment. At least that's the way it's often expressed: '..the crisis affecting the Roman Catholic Church..' or similar. This gives an indication of the attitude that surrounds the whole sordid affair, particularly that voiced by the RCC. It's as if this is something that has just befallen the RCC, something that has been thrust upon them and is now working to destroy their image, which seems to be the principal concern for many of those representing the Vatican.

Let's look at this a little closer and let's consider, whatever our position - atheist, agnostic or believer - what has happened. I have seen several articles that seem to come at things from this kind of angle: paedophiles exist in all walks of life, not just the RCC.. therefore this is not a problem with the church, but specific individuals that, in this case, happen to exist within the clergy.. what are you having a go at the RCC for?!?

This looks ok on first inspection. Well, maybe not ok, but after thinking for oohh, at least 10 seconds, it didn't sit quite right with me. I realised that this is not reasonable argument for several reasons.

1. The RCC supposedly have divine guidance when it comes to their behaviour; they claim to receive moral instruction directly via the inerrant word of god. Indeed a pope is only installed following a meeting of cardinals during which their aim is to divine the will of god. They have many rules, specific doctrine and are passionate about issues incompatible with their dogma ie. same sex marriage, female bishops, contraception, clearly serious issues, to them if nobody else. Surely these are the people of the world that must be 'good'. It is those who are outside of religion, anybody who chooses a moral path other than that drawn by god's own hand, they must all be drowning in a sea of moral relativism, unable to tell what is truly, absolutely right or wrong.

2. Paedophiles do exist in many walks of life, but one might ask whether the discipline of celibacy that priests follow in the RCC, the suppression of one's natural desires, has anything to do with the number of allegations made against the clergy. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to imply the answer with my question, but I feel the question should be asked.

3. I can't think of another institution or organisation that could, or would try and keep the sexual abuse of children by its members a secret. It seems that Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to Catholic bishops asking that any child rape or molestation cases were referred directly to his office. Matters were not referred directly to civil authorities, but were kept 'in-house' and there are stories of priests being moved to other parishes when their abuses looked like causing problems at their present location.

I don't enjoy it when people try and force their version of right and wrong down my throat, especially when they claim that their beliefs are endorsed by a particular god. The next time you find yourself being preached to, ask yourself whether the person who is doing it is qualified. Ask yourself whether they are any more able to determine what is right and what is wrong than you are.

There is no Karma

There is no karma; there is no justice; there is no order other than natural.

I shiver when people say 'everything happens for a reason'. I shudder everytime an athlete or an earthquake survivor attributes their victory or survival to a particular god or providence.

If we are to attribute our victories and fortunes to a god - and I see no reason why we should - then surely we must also attribute our losses and pain.

If it is god that saves a person's life in the midst if a disaster, then surely it is god who decides to take the lives of numerous others, by default. If god is capable of intervening in earthly affairs and deferring the death of anybody, but chooses to save only a few individuals (or any number other than all) then god is as responsible for allowing their death as of saving the lives of others. On what basis is this decision made? By what merits are the survivors judged worthy of saving? Why would a loving, all powerful creator spare less than all?

How many times have you witnessed a runner or a boxer or a swimmer (you can pick any sport) thank god for their victory? They credit a supernatural being for their victory, but often no mention is made of their genetic predispositon to the sport, their talent, or their hard work. If we believe that god is responsible for making the winner win, then the corollary must follow; god is responsible for making the losers lose. By virtue of the fact that god has not picked one of the losers to win, they have not won - their fate is sealed, even if only due to a positive choice not made in their favour. Although who knows, god might only enjoy picking the losers!

There are examples abound of injustice, the kind we shouldn't expect to see if there existed any karma or benign intervening force maintaining order. All around the world, people and other animals suffer through illness, disease and starvation. People we consider kind may die young and people we consider unkind or worse may seem blessed with boundless luck.

Providence doesn't exist. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa.

The list of examples available in support of my argument, in addition to those mentioned above, are longer than your arm, or even your leg. There are lots of things that I consider irreconcilable with any karma or godly organised providence that people may claim is in-force. Such theodicies as: 'god moves in mysterious ways' and 'it is not for us to know the mind of god' - don't cut it. They are cop-outs and they are insufficient for us to consider them satisfactory explanation of the world's many ills. They should be insufficient for anybody who is intellectually honest.