Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Even 0.0000000001% of sin hellbounds you.

By now, I'm sure everyone is aware of all Catholic Church scandals, in terms of some priests raping children, and then the church hierarchy essentially covering it up.

The defenses used by the Church have infuriated me. One is that other organizations also have their problems, and yet the Church is singled out due to anti-Catholicism. Well, other organizations don't claim that the head of their organization is the "Vicar of Christ," or that their organization is infallible or has a direct connection to God, or is the light of the world.

The other defense I see in some circles is that we also have to take all the good the Church has done into consideration. While these crimes are evil, it doesn't make the entire Church evil.

I don't know enough about Catholic theology, but from what I've read in standard evangelism, God can't stand even a micro spot of sin in His presence. It doesn't matter how many good works you do, those good works don't cancel out the sin/s. The sin is enough to taint all the good works. So if, in evangelical theology, the Church was an individual standing before God, asking God to take into consideration all the good works, even though said individual had either raped children or participated in a cover-up ... the Evangelical Theology would say the good works were essentially meaningless, as the crime tainted everything.

If Catholic Theology operates differently in terms of good works somewhat compensating for sins, then my question is meaningless. But if it doesn't, then I have to ask ... if your own theology, your own God Himself, cannot use good works to overlook sin ... why in turn are your defenders requesting that the world at large do something that goes against God's character? That goes against your very theology?

12 comments:

ethinethin said...

But isn't that their whole point of evangelizing? God can't stand sin, but people are saved through the blood of Jesus?

I think Catholic doctrine is a little different, requiring good works alongside Jesus for salvation. I think the good works have to outweigh the evil works. Lucky for me, I mostly do neutral works.

Kay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
OneSmallStep said...

Ethinethin,

Are the works considered equal? For instance, say a Catholic murdered someone, and then decided to spend the day feeding the poor? Does the good act cancel out the evil act, thus treating the two as on the same scale?

OneSmallStep said...

Kay,

AMEN!

ethinethin said...

I don't know; maybe you need an equal or opposite work. Steal from someone? Give to someone else. Murder someone? Bring a child into the world. Rape someone? ... get moved to a new parish (ho ho ho!).

Lorena said...

Ethinethin is right. Catholics are "saved" by works. The grace doctrine is evangelical.

Catholics just have to confess their sin to a priest and that absolves them.

Bunch of BS, huh?

Sarge said...

Of course, we can always go the "indulgence" route.

Apparently "Jesus Saves" and he's always on the llokout for more money to add to his collection (in more ways than one, collection) so a financial fixaroo is always an option.
Well, there was that pesky schism and reformation during the last big campaign, still, maybe if we dust it off again? Give it another lap around the track?

Odd, how delicate this alleged entity is.

Jon said...

From my understanding OSS is right about God only being able to accept purity - but purity is attained through confession and absolution rather than good works. So if the guilty priest confesses he can receive absolution and then its all OK. Sad about the victims, but what can you do? This of course is not an exclusively Catholic problem - over here in Aus the Anglican Church (Episcopalians for you USers) had the same kind of scandal with the same depressing pattern of protection of the perpetrators. The Archbishop of Brisbane even said on national television that in relation to a particular case he understood that the teenage girl initiated the sexual contact, as if that somehow excused it. I'm 100% with Kay on this one. Over here part of the agenda was that the church didn't want to compensate victims because then it might have to sell assets. Sell that cathedral, I say, and care for the weak and oppressed, to very loosely paraphrase someone of importance to the Christian church.

OneSmallStep said...

Lorena/Ethinethin,

Based on those viewpoints, I can almost see why the Catholic Church didn't originally take this seriously. Say it truly is that interchangeable -- murder someone, so make reparations by bringing a child into the world. It treats people as interchangeable. And, if all you need to be "clean" is to confess to a priest, then the focus is always on the self, rather than the victim.

OneSmallStep said...

Sarge,

Or, how odd that the deity is constrained by human finances.

OneSmallStep said...

Jon,

**The Archbishop of Brisbane even said on national television that in relation to a particular case he understood that the teenage girl initiated the sexual contact, as if that somehow excused it. I'm 100% with Kay on this one. Over here part of the agenda was that the church didn't want to compensate victims because then it might have to sell assets.**

I read things like this, and my only conclusion is that these people aren't human. At all. They have no sense of compassion or empathy. On my really cynical days, I even go so far as to say they don't understand the concept of evil or good.

Jon said...

OSS, I think they do seem to lack compassion. However, I think they have also been institutionalised. Their insitution is more important than any person, and must be protected at all costs. Their identification with this institution interferes with their indentification with the victim. Unlike God, who needs no protection, and who identifies with the victims so much he became one.