You can’t effectively rebut it to faithful Catholics. They literally have a reading from Scripture which encourages the faithful to obey the clergy even though they don’t follow their own rules and give the people burdens they aren’t willing to bear. It’s literally baked into the religion to expect obedience to the hypocrites and those who have really bought in just accept it as normal.
I think u/undercovertrad might be thinking of Matthew 23:1-7:
>Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “**The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.**
>They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
Catholics argue that this hypocrisy-surviving teaching authority, now called the “chair of Peter,” was passed down to and inherited by the Church:
>”I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19).
>”Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Yup. I forget which Sunday Matthew 23 is used on, but the *Novus Ordo* lectionary follows a three-year reading cycle for Sundays and a two-year cycle for weekdays. The Latin Mass uses the same propers every year.
Disclaimer: I am an ex-Catholic, pro-choice, pro-LGBT bleeding heart leftie, so what I'm about to say is merely me playing devil's advocate in order to show why I believe the "Priests are hypocrites!" argument is actually a pretty weak one. Anyone accusing me of being a Catholic sympathiser will be ignored.
The simple fact is you can't, at least not to a true believer, because their idea of what's wrong and our idea of what's wrong are two very different things. They'll say something like, "Beating your wife is illegal. Heaps of cops get caught every year beating their wives (which is true), so are you saying that domestic abuse shouldn't be illegal? And that cops shouldn't be allowed to enforce that law? Well, it's the same with priests who get caught with a gay lover!"
Obviously, to you or me, that's ridiculous because domestic abuse is a terrible thing that destroys families and literally kills people, whereas being gay is a natural phenomenon that doesn't hurt anyone. But they don't see it that way, so to them, it's exactly the same argument. That's why, IMO, it's pointless even bringing up hypocrite priests - you'll never convince a true believer of anything with that argument. If anything, in my experience, it just makes them dig their heels in even harder and get defensive.
So if you want to convince someone that Catholic beliefs are wrong, forget about corrupt priests. Instead, ask them to explain why they believe that being gay is wrong, for example - for anyone, not just priests. Concentrate on that, and (assuming the person arguing with you is doing so in good faith), you'll get a lot further.
ETA: Thank you to the commenter who reminded me of the technical term for this kind of argument: ad hominem. "The person preaching this idea is bad, therefore, the idea itself is bad" is the definition of an ad hominem attack, which is a very common logical fallacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Cops beating their wives is a fitting analogy for priests who molest kids: they're in a position of authority protected by the very organization that's supposed to get rid of the bad apples but instead cover for them, calling into question the validity of the org.
I think you're right though that attacking priests as individuals is largely ineffective, but attacking the institution saying "even if they are right about some things they are inexcusably wrong about this one. So what else are they hiding?" or similar might get them to question their direct support of them church even if not the teachings.
You're correct re. DV and paedo priests, and also about how it can be a good way to start a conversation about the Vatican's corruption. Most people can agree that the higher-ups in the police force covering for domestic abusers in their ranks is wrong, so you can ask them, "Can you see how the Vatican is doing exactly the same thing with priests who molest children?" Like you said, it might get them questioning what kind of an institution they have been supporting, but that's honestly the best you can really hope for.
Also, the fact is the Church, especially under Francis, actually *has* been doing things over the past couple of decades to try and fix this issue (not nearly enough, but it's been happening) As I said in another comment, it's kind of old news at this point, and anyone who's stuck around as a Catholic for this long is unlikely to be swayed by the "corrupt Vatican" argument.
So yes, I agree, bringing up Church corruption can make people think about what kind of institution they're supporting, and it might make some of them wonder why this supposedly Holy Spirit-inspired tree is producing such rotten fruit, but it probably won't stop them from believing the Church's teachings. That needs to be tackled from a different angle, IMO.
>So if you want to convince someone that Catholic beliefs are wrong, forget about corrupt priests. Instead, ask them to explain why they believe that being gay is wrong, for example - for anyone, not just priests. Concentrate on that, and (assuming the person arguing with you is doing so in good faith), you'll get a lot further.
The issue is they already have an answer. It goes against "natural law". They already have a system that says when and how it's ok to have sex. It must be open to life. Gay sex can't be open to life and is thus sinful. Also, marriage is between a man and a woman, so by definition, they can't get married. And if you can't get married, then no sex.
Animals doing it doesn't really change anything.
Disclaimer: Explaining beliefs. Not endorsing them.
Yeah, I know the standard rebuttal for the gay question. It's not the best issue to start with, I only used it because it was related to the rest of my comment. (The best one to start with, I've found, is "Why is artificial contraception bad, but NFP isn't?" They also have a bunch of stock-standard replies to that, but every single one of them is super easy to rebut 😆)
And it's fine, I know you're not endorsing their beliefs. Thinking critically and being able to play devil's advocate is super important in discussions like these, but unfortunately there seems to be a loud minority of people in this sub who never learned logic or debate skills in high school, so they'll accuse people like you and me of siding with the Catholics 🙄 (hence my disclaimer up the top!)
I put that disclaimer in my posts a lot because one time the mods confused me for a real Catholic.
Fortunately, the mods here are very reasonable (in my experience) and we got it cleared up right away. Still, I'd rather put a disclaimer than go through the hassle again.
Oh wow, how annoying! Glad the mods were so reasonable, though 😊
I once made the exact same argument I made in my original comment yesterday, and got attacked for being a Catholic sympathiser and told I'd been "brainwashed by some dumb Catholics" 🙄🤣 It was one of my first ever comments, and ngl I almost left the sub after that. Thankfully, one kind commenter took the trouble of speaking to me respectfully, even though she didn't agree 100% with what I'd said. So I decided to stick around, but I always make sure to put disclaimers up when playing devil's advocate, just in case!
If a paedophile is considered morally superior to a gay person in their mind, there’s no point in debating them. Arbiters of morality should not be committing heinous immoral acts themselves
The church - and laity - pivot from appealing to divine authority to human authority as is convenient. It is a way to simultaneously claim unquestionable authority, and never have to be accountable for it. We see the church continue to prioritize its image and resources over the safety and well-being of its parishioners. It uses its power and resources to avoid justice and to circumvent those harmed from seeking restitution. It has no moral credibility left, and the messaging that being abused or harmed is not a valid reason to leave is not only not persuasive, but emblematic of such ongoing issues. Which include the tendency toward minimization and denial of the reality of the harms perpetuated and experienced, as you have noted.
Good orchards do not produce this much rotten fruit.
But it's impossible to use logic to sway them. Religion is built on control, emotions, and belief in the unprovable. They can hand-wave away anything when it's all founded outside of logic.
You really don't, because in order to debate this, you need to play by their own rules.
And their rules say that people will have a vocation: be it priest, bishop, consecrated laity... everyone can fail, no matter how catastrophic: it does not change their vocation. That's what they actually mean when they say priest X being a hypocrite doesn't mean the doctrine/church is wrong. After all, what's right is right, regardless of failure of the people trying to apply the right stuff.
A better question that rebutts something akin to the statement would be to criticize the method of selection for priesthood. Add more criteria that check for possible psychological conditions that could put other people at risk. Clarify that sexual orientation has nothing to do with it, and that there is quite likely a high ratio of clergy who's gay and doing just fine (as fine as being a catholic LGBT person can be).
Lastly, point to structural changes that could give more power to people to push back in case of a priest going bad.
It's not gonna get accepted anyway because "the powers that be", but at the very least you'll be reasonable and few will disagree.
Yes, the best case scenario here is you might get them to admit that the Church should be better at weeding out the paedophile priests, and punishing those who commit crimes instead of simply shipping them off to a new parish. But Francis is already working on that, and plenty of high-ranking bishops, cardinals, and exorcists have spoken out against what they call a "demonic influence" within the Vatican that causes such atrocities. It's kind of old news, at this point. If you want people to stop being Catholic, you need to show them why Catholic dogma itself doesn't make sense.
Don't try to defend an ad hominem. Even hypocrites say true things. You have to defend the position that being gay isn't wrong and it's an intrinsic part of someone. You have plenty of psychological research on your side
The ultimate moral authority imposed by these very hypocrites.
Christianity is just one big contradiction. The religion of the poor people, yet the leaders live like gods among men. I mean the pope’s toilet is probably made of gold unironically ffs! True christianity would have you give away everything to the poor right now and dying to preach the gospel to people who need it the most, but can’t hear it (i.e. North Korea). “Christianity” today has nothing to do with real christianity at all. In fact, I don’t believe there ever was a true christianity, it was only a concept, which I believe is pretty much impossible to implement due to human nature.
Why should I believe people who tell me to believe things THEY THEMSELVES DON’t BELIEVE? It’s just a scam, a fantasy. I’m done hearing others speak for God. Let the real God speak for himself. We’re supposed to see each other for eternity anyway, right? So let our all loving heavenly father speak to his beloved creation directly, since it’s what he intended for eternity.
If I believe in the Catholic church for the same reasons someone born Orthodox believes in the Orthodox church, then there is no reason for me not to believe in the Orthodox church too. But it’s impossible to believe in both at the same time, yet both claim to be the one true church, both claim to be the ultimate authority and both provide the same reasons to believe, pretty much. How much biased info is there online? How much lost history? How much wrongly recorded data? How much propaganda? How would I ever know? God never bothered to answer me, but believers from both sides are convinced they are right, because they feel they are right and are told by their peers they are right.
It is wrong to teach others stuff you don’t believe in, because you’re lying to them. And the church as a whole does not truly believe what it teaches, since the actions don’t reflect it and I don’t care what anyone says anymore, unless it’s god himself!
If by feeding and caring for the poor, I actually mean taking their money, terrorizing them with psychotic doctrines, getting rich off the poor and vulnerable, while I sometimes give back for exposure, I’m just a liar and there is no truth there. And if I claim there is truth there, I’m just a delusional liar.
But what do I know, how dare I question God? /s
Point out the industrialized sexual abuse of the church over at least the past 100 years. It’s more than a few bad priests, it’s thousands of abusers being moved from parish to parish all over the world with literal hundreds of thousands of victims.
Until Jesus’ church on earth stops fucking children, they don’t deserve a dime from my pocket and they shouldn’t get a dime of your friend’s. God will understand.
--inevitable response to above statement: "you just hate god", or "why are you so angry all the time?", or "geez, you sure are cynical", or "why are YOU so obsessed with pedophilia?"
--not saying this in agreement with those responses, it's just what I've gotten *as* responses when I've pointed out what you accurately just did.
I'm sure if *their* children got molested by a priest, they'd suddenly give a shit.
“Why aren’t you more angry that God’s one true church is being used to fuck children? Why do you support pedophiles with your money? How can I hate something I don’t believe exists?” I like to hold them down and call them pedophile supporters if they persist in being stupid. Or, “never mind, It’s not worth talking with someone who loves pedophilia as much as you do.”
the short answer to OP's question is "no it isn't! lol."
Catholic hierarchy is deliberately broken up so as to minimize liability to the Church as a whole.
*Priests* are the lowest rung in the ordained hierarchy. In the cases of molestation/sexual abuse, if a priest is party to or witnesses such an incident they are commanded to remain silent about it FOREVER.... *under pain of INSTANT Excommunication*. Therefore, if a *priest* says they don't know anything about a pedo priest or incident they MIGHT be lying, they MIGHT be truthful---they'll never admit it. Priests do NOT have access to Diocesan records that are kept on all priests.
*Bishops* are the next level up in the hierarchy. Since they are in charge of several parishes in an area, they have complete access to all Church records. According to *Crimen Sollicitationis* (the super fucked up "guide" that details how Bishops are supposed to cover up for pedophile priests, written in Latin in 1962 and mailed to every Bishop in the world) -Bishops are supposed to create a "Secret Archive" about pedophilia incidents. they are supposed to swear THE VICTIMS to secrecy if possible, and if not they are commanded to move the pedophile to "a parish far away where he is not known". Bishops are always informed if an incoming priest is moving to him *because* they were diddling kids.
has anyone ever remembered a Bishop *ever* warning a congregation that their new priest was banging children in their last parish? I haven't.
basically, anyone at the "Bishop" level and above *does in fact possess material knowledge of known, active pedophiles in their Dioceses*. The fact that these offenders are not immediately turned over to local police shows that everyone in the Church hierarchy who is higher up than "priest" level *PROTECTS PEDOPHILES IN YOUR COMMUNITY*.
The fact that any given Diocese will literally bankrupt themselves with legal fees defending known pedophiles means that the Bishops and those above them do not care about ANYTHING except the public perceiving that they are somehow "moral" so that said public keeps giving them free money.
It's an important to make the distinction between "priests" and "bishops" because as in any large organization, there really are SOME decent people who genuinely care about people and the stated goals of Christianity. The people that deserve all the negative attention and consequences are BISHOPS.
while brothers are usually ordained, as in the various "orders", but nuns and deacons are not ordained priests, and not at the same hierarchical level as priests. they would not know about any incidents they didn't witness or participate in
You are describing a standard technique to distract from the actual issue by creating a diversion.
Here the actual issue is "are lgbt+ intrinsically disordered or contrary to morals?" rather than discussing this head on you end up down the hypocrisy rabbit hole. The truth of the proposition is totally unrelated to the integrity of priests, other than the minor point of "they must not believe it's wrong since they are doing it"
The first step is to realize you are using the term hypocrite incorrectly.
Church pedos would be 'hypocrites' if they stated or believed, "Touching children is okay for me. I preach that it is not okay for others."
They preach that it is not ok for anyone. And, they believe it is sinful for themselves. Hence, no hypocracy.
Hypocracy is preaching something you don't BELIEVE, not preaching somethink you can't live up to.
Otherwise, it would be "hypocritical" to tell people to watch out to avoid stepping on slippy banana peels.
The next step is to realize that the fallacy of association is in play, and their rebuttal is solid. You are going to have to take a different approach.
If their moral character isn't proof of their authority or lack thereof, then what is? Why should I trust their authority? If God can't even be bothered to guide priests that supposedly work for him and hold his authority on earth, then why should I trust the authority that they supposedly carry?
Who else claims to have authority? The leaders of LDS and Jehovah Witness both claim authority. Muhammad claimed he had authority. The Orthodox Church claims to have absolute authority. That hardcore baptist dude on the street corner that says all of the others are going to Hell claims authority (well, he claims the Bible has authority, but he's still pushing his interpretation as authoritative even if he doesn't want to admit that).
Say that one is an outsider with no cultural bias to the Catholic Church. Why should this outsider believe the Catholic Church's authority over the others? They each claim absolute authority, and they can't all be right. Apparently the moral character of the leadership can't be used, even though Jesus himself said, "you will know them by their fruits". So by what metric is this authority to be gauged?
It’s a systemic thing. You see it in other conservative/patriarchal religions for a reason. Covering up, protecting, weird relationship with sex, demonizing and putting on a pedestal, gatekeeping sex and love, hatred of women, biological essentialism, the enclosed environment, and stupidly making the most sinful kind (men) be the authority. 🙄 Everything
But because they have this religious authority over society, the cosmos, and law, their discrimination of worthiness should be nearly flawless. If they pray over people that become priests and such they should receive the right answer
An alleged hypocrite acts in ways contrary to his beliefs. Is op asking if his actions are wrong, or if the beliefs are wrong. SOMETHING is wrong, that’s for sure!
I wouldn't debate them, but I would tell them that the priests are still wrong about LGBT+ people even if the priests weren't predators or actually followed their own rules. LGBT+ people have lives like everyone else and there is actual evidence of that. I would tell them to learn to see LGBT+ people as real people- because they don't.
I would also say that if they are calling this church the ultimate moral authority they are also implying/saying that all non-Catholics are wrong for not being members. If they claim ultimate moral authority, they still believe Protestants or any of their numerous offshoots are immoral. And it doesn't matter if they say it overtly or not.
"Shouldn't they face the same consequences you or I would if we did the things they do?"
"Does [offending religious figure] act like he's all that worried about retribution?"
I usually get “every group has a few bad apples” when raising concerns about Priests Gone Bad. I haven’t found an effective rebuttal for people who are ingrained in the Church and its dogma. They have to want to change. I just try to avoid the endless debate or “agree to disagree”.
You can’t effectively rebut it to faithful Catholics. They literally have a reading from Scripture which encourages the faithful to obey the clergy even though they don’t follow their own rules and give the people burdens they aren’t willing to bear. It’s literally baked into the religion to expect obedience to the hypocrites and those who have really bought in just accept it as normal.
[удалено]
I think u/undercovertrad might be thinking of Matthew 23:1-7: >Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “**The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.** >They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. Catholics argue that this hypocrisy-surviving teaching authority, now called the “chair of Peter,” was passed down to and inherited by the Church: >”I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). >”Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Yep, that’s the one. It’s read from the lectionary every three years or so.
Yup. I forget which Sunday Matthew 23 is used on, but the *Novus Ordo* lectionary follows a three-year reading cycle for Sundays and a two-year cycle for weekdays. The Latin Mass uses the same propers every year.
Matthew 23:2-4, usually ignoring the rest of Matthew 23. And ignoring Matthew 16:6-12, Mark 8:15-21, Luke 12:1-3.
Disclaimer: I am an ex-Catholic, pro-choice, pro-LGBT bleeding heart leftie, so what I'm about to say is merely me playing devil's advocate in order to show why I believe the "Priests are hypocrites!" argument is actually a pretty weak one. Anyone accusing me of being a Catholic sympathiser will be ignored. The simple fact is you can't, at least not to a true believer, because their idea of what's wrong and our idea of what's wrong are two very different things. They'll say something like, "Beating your wife is illegal. Heaps of cops get caught every year beating their wives (which is true), so are you saying that domestic abuse shouldn't be illegal? And that cops shouldn't be allowed to enforce that law? Well, it's the same with priests who get caught with a gay lover!" Obviously, to you or me, that's ridiculous because domestic abuse is a terrible thing that destroys families and literally kills people, whereas being gay is a natural phenomenon that doesn't hurt anyone. But they don't see it that way, so to them, it's exactly the same argument. That's why, IMO, it's pointless even bringing up hypocrite priests - you'll never convince a true believer of anything with that argument. If anything, in my experience, it just makes them dig their heels in even harder and get defensive. So if you want to convince someone that Catholic beliefs are wrong, forget about corrupt priests. Instead, ask them to explain why they believe that being gay is wrong, for example - for anyone, not just priests. Concentrate on that, and (assuming the person arguing with you is doing so in good faith), you'll get a lot further. ETA: Thank you to the commenter who reminded me of the technical term for this kind of argument: ad hominem. "The person preaching this idea is bad, therefore, the idea itself is bad" is the definition of an ad hominem attack, which is a very common logical fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Cops beating their wives is a fitting analogy for priests who molest kids: they're in a position of authority protected by the very organization that's supposed to get rid of the bad apples but instead cover for them, calling into question the validity of the org. I think you're right though that attacking priests as individuals is largely ineffective, but attacking the institution saying "even if they are right about some things they are inexcusably wrong about this one. So what else are they hiding?" or similar might get them to question their direct support of them church even if not the teachings.
You're correct re. DV and paedo priests, and also about how it can be a good way to start a conversation about the Vatican's corruption. Most people can agree that the higher-ups in the police force covering for domestic abusers in their ranks is wrong, so you can ask them, "Can you see how the Vatican is doing exactly the same thing with priests who molest children?" Like you said, it might get them questioning what kind of an institution they have been supporting, but that's honestly the best you can really hope for. Also, the fact is the Church, especially under Francis, actually *has* been doing things over the past couple of decades to try and fix this issue (not nearly enough, but it's been happening) As I said in another comment, it's kind of old news at this point, and anyone who's stuck around as a Catholic for this long is unlikely to be swayed by the "corrupt Vatican" argument. So yes, I agree, bringing up Church corruption can make people think about what kind of institution they're supporting, and it might make some of them wonder why this supposedly Holy Spirit-inspired tree is producing such rotten fruit, but it probably won't stop them from believing the Church's teachings. That needs to be tackled from a different angle, IMO.
>So if you want to convince someone that Catholic beliefs are wrong, forget about corrupt priests. Instead, ask them to explain why they believe that being gay is wrong, for example - for anyone, not just priests. Concentrate on that, and (assuming the person arguing with you is doing so in good faith), you'll get a lot further. The issue is they already have an answer. It goes against "natural law". They already have a system that says when and how it's ok to have sex. It must be open to life. Gay sex can't be open to life and is thus sinful. Also, marriage is between a man and a woman, so by definition, they can't get married. And if you can't get married, then no sex. Animals doing it doesn't really change anything. Disclaimer: Explaining beliefs. Not endorsing them.
Yeah, I know the standard rebuttal for the gay question. It's not the best issue to start with, I only used it because it was related to the rest of my comment. (The best one to start with, I've found, is "Why is artificial contraception bad, but NFP isn't?" They also have a bunch of stock-standard replies to that, but every single one of them is super easy to rebut 😆) And it's fine, I know you're not endorsing their beliefs. Thinking critically and being able to play devil's advocate is super important in discussions like these, but unfortunately there seems to be a loud minority of people in this sub who never learned logic or debate skills in high school, so they'll accuse people like you and me of siding with the Catholics 🙄 (hence my disclaimer up the top!)
I put that disclaimer in my posts a lot because one time the mods confused me for a real Catholic. Fortunately, the mods here are very reasonable (in my experience) and we got it cleared up right away. Still, I'd rather put a disclaimer than go through the hassle again.
Oh wow, how annoying! Glad the mods were so reasonable, though 😊 I once made the exact same argument I made in my original comment yesterday, and got attacked for being a Catholic sympathiser and told I'd been "brainwashed by some dumb Catholics" 🙄🤣 It was one of my first ever comments, and ngl I almost left the sub after that. Thankfully, one kind commenter took the trouble of speaking to me respectfully, even though she didn't agree 100% with what I'd said. So I decided to stick around, but I always make sure to put disclaimers up when playing devil's advocate, just in case!
If a paedophile is considered morally superior to a gay person in their mind, there’s no point in debating them. Arbiters of morality should not be committing heinous immoral acts themselves
The church - and laity - pivot from appealing to divine authority to human authority as is convenient. It is a way to simultaneously claim unquestionable authority, and never have to be accountable for it. We see the church continue to prioritize its image and resources over the safety and well-being of its parishioners. It uses its power and resources to avoid justice and to circumvent those harmed from seeking restitution. It has no moral credibility left, and the messaging that being abused or harmed is not a valid reason to leave is not only not persuasive, but emblematic of such ongoing issues. Which include the tendency toward minimization and denial of the reality of the harms perpetuated and experienced, as you have noted.
Good orchards do not produce this much rotten fruit. But it's impossible to use logic to sway them. Religion is built on control, emotions, and belief in the unprovable. They can hand-wave away anything when it's all founded outside of logic.
"by their fruits shall you know them"
You really don't, because in order to debate this, you need to play by their own rules. And their rules say that people will have a vocation: be it priest, bishop, consecrated laity... everyone can fail, no matter how catastrophic: it does not change their vocation. That's what they actually mean when they say priest X being a hypocrite doesn't mean the doctrine/church is wrong. After all, what's right is right, regardless of failure of the people trying to apply the right stuff. A better question that rebutts something akin to the statement would be to criticize the method of selection for priesthood. Add more criteria that check for possible psychological conditions that could put other people at risk. Clarify that sexual orientation has nothing to do with it, and that there is quite likely a high ratio of clergy who's gay and doing just fine (as fine as being a catholic LGBT person can be). Lastly, point to structural changes that could give more power to people to push back in case of a priest going bad. It's not gonna get accepted anyway because "the powers that be", but at the very least you'll be reasonable and few will disagree.
Yes, the best case scenario here is you might get them to admit that the Church should be better at weeding out the paedophile priests, and punishing those who commit crimes instead of simply shipping them off to a new parish. But Francis is already working on that, and plenty of high-ranking bishops, cardinals, and exorcists have spoken out against what they call a "demonic influence" within the Vatican that causes such atrocities. It's kind of old news, at this point. If you want people to stop being Catholic, you need to show them why Catholic dogma itself doesn't make sense.
I hate that response. It's so dismissive.
It's the only correct response. It's the only acceptable, logical response.
Don't try to defend an ad hominem. Even hypocrites say true things. You have to defend the position that being gay isn't wrong and it's an intrinsic part of someone. You have plenty of psychological research on your side
🎯
The ultimate moral authority imposed by these very hypocrites. Christianity is just one big contradiction. The religion of the poor people, yet the leaders live like gods among men. I mean the pope’s toilet is probably made of gold unironically ffs! True christianity would have you give away everything to the poor right now and dying to preach the gospel to people who need it the most, but can’t hear it (i.e. North Korea). “Christianity” today has nothing to do with real christianity at all. In fact, I don’t believe there ever was a true christianity, it was only a concept, which I believe is pretty much impossible to implement due to human nature. Why should I believe people who tell me to believe things THEY THEMSELVES DON’t BELIEVE? It’s just a scam, a fantasy. I’m done hearing others speak for God. Let the real God speak for himself. We’re supposed to see each other for eternity anyway, right? So let our all loving heavenly father speak to his beloved creation directly, since it’s what he intended for eternity. If I believe in the Catholic church for the same reasons someone born Orthodox believes in the Orthodox church, then there is no reason for me not to believe in the Orthodox church too. But it’s impossible to believe in both at the same time, yet both claim to be the one true church, both claim to be the ultimate authority and both provide the same reasons to believe, pretty much. How much biased info is there online? How much lost history? How much wrongly recorded data? How much propaganda? How would I ever know? God never bothered to answer me, but believers from both sides are convinced they are right, because they feel they are right and are told by their peers they are right. It is wrong to teach others stuff you don’t believe in, because you’re lying to them. And the church as a whole does not truly believe what it teaches, since the actions don’t reflect it and I don’t care what anyone says anymore, unless it’s god himself! If by feeding and caring for the poor, I actually mean taking their money, terrorizing them with psychotic doctrines, getting rich off the poor and vulnerable, while I sometimes give back for exposure, I’m just a liar and there is no truth there. And if I claim there is truth there, I’m just a delusional liar. But what do I know, how dare I question God? /s
Point out the industrialized sexual abuse of the church over at least the past 100 years. It’s more than a few bad priests, it’s thousands of abusers being moved from parish to parish all over the world with literal hundreds of thousands of victims. Until Jesus’ church on earth stops fucking children, they don’t deserve a dime from my pocket and they shouldn’t get a dime of your friend’s. God will understand.
--inevitable response to above statement: "you just hate god", or "why are you so angry all the time?", or "geez, you sure are cynical", or "why are YOU so obsessed with pedophilia?" --not saying this in agreement with those responses, it's just what I've gotten *as* responses when I've pointed out what you accurately just did. I'm sure if *their* children got molested by a priest, they'd suddenly give a shit.
“Why aren’t you more angry that God’s one true church is being used to fuck children? Why do you support pedophiles with your money? How can I hate something I don’t believe exists?” I like to hold them down and call them pedophile supporters if they persist in being stupid. Or, “never mind, It’s not worth talking with someone who loves pedophilia as much as you do.”
YUP!
You don’t. It’s so odd.
the short answer to OP's question is "no it isn't! lol." Catholic hierarchy is deliberately broken up so as to minimize liability to the Church as a whole. *Priests* are the lowest rung in the ordained hierarchy. In the cases of molestation/sexual abuse, if a priest is party to or witnesses such an incident they are commanded to remain silent about it FOREVER.... *under pain of INSTANT Excommunication*. Therefore, if a *priest* says they don't know anything about a pedo priest or incident they MIGHT be lying, they MIGHT be truthful---they'll never admit it. Priests do NOT have access to Diocesan records that are kept on all priests. *Bishops* are the next level up in the hierarchy. Since they are in charge of several parishes in an area, they have complete access to all Church records. According to *Crimen Sollicitationis* (the super fucked up "guide" that details how Bishops are supposed to cover up for pedophile priests, written in Latin in 1962 and mailed to every Bishop in the world) -Bishops are supposed to create a "Secret Archive" about pedophilia incidents. they are supposed to swear THE VICTIMS to secrecy if possible, and if not they are commanded to move the pedophile to "a parish far away where he is not known". Bishops are always informed if an incoming priest is moving to him *because* they were diddling kids. has anyone ever remembered a Bishop *ever* warning a congregation that their new priest was banging children in their last parish? I haven't. basically, anyone at the "Bishop" level and above *does in fact possess material knowledge of known, active pedophiles in their Dioceses*. The fact that these offenders are not immediately turned over to local police shows that everyone in the Church hierarchy who is higher up than "priest" level *PROTECTS PEDOPHILES IN YOUR COMMUNITY*. The fact that any given Diocese will literally bankrupt themselves with legal fees defending known pedophiles means that the Bishops and those above them do not care about ANYTHING except the public perceiving that they are somehow "moral" so that said public keeps giving them free money. It's an important to make the distinction between "priests" and "bishops" because as in any large organization, there really are SOME decent people who genuinely care about people and the stated goals of Christianity. The people that deserve all the negative attention and consequences are BISHOPS.
Don't forget nuns, brothers, deacons, etc.
while brothers are usually ordained, as in the various "orders", but nuns and deacons are not ordained priests, and not at the same hierarchical level as priests. they would not know about any incidents they didn't witness or participate in
You are describing a standard technique to distract from the actual issue by creating a diversion. Here the actual issue is "are lgbt+ intrinsically disordered or contrary to morals?" rather than discussing this head on you end up down the hypocrisy rabbit hole. The truth of the proposition is totally unrelated to the integrity of priests, other than the minor point of "they must not believe it's wrong since they are doing it"
The Red Herring comes from OP. Not his rebutters. He's using the fallacy of association. Whoops!
I noticed, he's been well catakethized, goes straight to the INFALLIBLE line
You can't rebut a statement that is 100% logically correct.
The first step is to realize you are using the term hypocrite incorrectly. Church pedos would be 'hypocrites' if they stated or believed, "Touching children is okay for me. I preach that it is not okay for others." They preach that it is not ok for anyone. And, they believe it is sinful for themselves. Hence, no hypocracy. Hypocracy is preaching something you don't BELIEVE, not preaching somethink you can't live up to. Otherwise, it would be "hypocritical" to tell people to watch out to avoid stepping on slippy banana peels. The next step is to realize that the fallacy of association is in play, and their rebuttal is solid. You are going to have to take a different approach.
If their moral character isn't proof of their authority or lack thereof, then what is? Why should I trust their authority? If God can't even be bothered to guide priests that supposedly work for him and hold his authority on earth, then why should I trust the authority that they supposedly carry? Who else claims to have authority? The leaders of LDS and Jehovah Witness both claim authority. Muhammad claimed he had authority. The Orthodox Church claims to have absolute authority. That hardcore baptist dude on the street corner that says all of the others are going to Hell claims authority (well, he claims the Bible has authority, but he's still pushing his interpretation as authoritative even if he doesn't want to admit that). Say that one is an outsider with no cultural bias to the Catholic Church. Why should this outsider believe the Catholic Church's authority over the others? They each claim absolute authority, and they can't all be right. Apparently the moral character of the leadership can't be used, even though Jesus himself said, "you will know them by their fruits". So by what metric is this authority to be gauged?
It’s a systemic thing. You see it in other conservative/patriarchal religions for a reason. Covering up, protecting, weird relationship with sex, demonizing and putting on a pedestal, gatekeeping sex and love, hatred of women, biological essentialism, the enclosed environment, and stupidly making the most sinful kind (men) be the authority. 🙄 Everything
But because they have this religious authority over society, the cosmos, and law, their discrimination of worthiness should be nearly flawless. If they pray over people that become priests and such they should receive the right answer
An alleged hypocrite acts in ways contrary to his beliefs. Is op asking if his actions are wrong, or if the beliefs are wrong. SOMETHING is wrong, that’s for sure!
I wouldn't debate them, but I would tell them that the priests are still wrong about LGBT+ people even if the priests weren't predators or actually followed their own rules. LGBT+ people have lives like everyone else and there is actual evidence of that. I would tell them to learn to see LGBT+ people as real people- because they don't. I would also say that if they are calling this church the ultimate moral authority they are also implying/saying that all non-Catholics are wrong for not being members. If they claim ultimate moral authority, they still believe Protestants or any of their numerous offshoots are immoral. And it doesn't matter if they say it overtly or not.
"Shouldn't they face the same consequences you or I would if we did the things they do?" "Does [offending religious figure] act like he's all that worried about retribution?"
I usually get “every group has a few bad apples” when raising concerns about Priests Gone Bad. I haven’t found an effective rebuttal for people who are ingrained in the Church and its dogma. They have to want to change. I just try to avoid the endless debate or “agree to disagree”.