Catholic Power and Democracy

I intend to wite a few posts on the Catholic Church in American democracy. In no way do I find fault with the catholic laity I know; nor, frankly with the priests I know. But church as an international institution does have problems in a democratic society.

I start with two premises.

One, the laity have no power or influence in the catholic church. Church supporters like to say "the Church is not a democracy." And I accept this description. Only a few hundred, and, in most cases,one, the Pope, have any say in its policies. The laity can be saved by the church, but the church has no fundamental need for the laity.

Two, the church, unlike other institutions, does not have beliefs. it has final knowledge in any matter on which it so desires to exercise its authority. Anglicans believe there doctrines are true. The catholic church KNOWS what is right or wrong in any situation.

Democracy, on the other hand, is based not on absolute certainty but on a myriad of beliefs which in the final analysis must be compromised to work effectively. The Enlightenment and the rise of science, Wiegel to the contrary, have tended to remove Absolute certainty from civil society. Now we can be sure with a high degree of certainty that some things are right and some wrong. But democracy can not function if a large group claims the right of absolute final say as to how the society should operate. And this is the claim of the church. No matter what the majority says, much less any minority,----the church has the absolute final say on any matter it chooses to speak on.

The catholic church is the greatest danger to civil accord and the working of democracy. The church says that almost all Americans, 90 per cent or more, are supporters of genocide. Our new president is also a supporter of genocide. Is their a catholic bishop who, if he had the power, would not remove all democratic officials who disagree with catholic teaching. After all, as the saying goes "error has no right to exist."

Is the church subject to the laws developed in a democracy. The church clearly showed in the sex abuse scandal that its representatives are not subject to civil law. The pope himself called the cases of abuse just media hysteria. The archbishops and bishops, obviously believeing themselves not subject to civil authority, simply reassigned known child rapist.

The church claims absolute control over the private sex lives of their members. Fair enough, I guess. But it is clear they desire to control ALL citizens private lives, because what the church teaches must be true. It cannot be wrong.

Am I exaggerating. I think not. The church desires to have final say on any matter it so desires, but realizes at this time it does not have that power. But they are working. Any catholic medical professional licensed by the state now has the power to refuse medical aid to any person if such aid goes against his beliefs. Exaggeration? Could a devout catholic physican under this executive order refuse to give medical attention to those injured in the bombing of an abortion clinic, or even members of a Planned Parenthood group? Maybe not. But with a supreme court dominated by devout catholics could such be an interpretation of the law?

Wiegel and others have made it clear that our courts and judges SHOULD be under the complete control of catholic policies.

The bishop of Scranton Pa. has made it clear that he alone can speak on moral matters in his area. Right now, to catholics, but I am sure he believes, as the sole possessor of absolute truth in that area, that he should have absolute power over all citizens.

And what does the Vatican do? And what do our other bishops do. Nothing, of course. This group of celibate men should have, and I repeat, should have absolute power over the citizens of America. And who are we to complain about "Absolute power corrupting" Is the church not now safely past the rape of young boys.