The Skeptical Reply

My friend the Skeptic's response - some very powerful and personal comments and thoughts:

I think you're right about identifying the source of our differences. I have always thought of "church" as "The Church," a hierarchical institution. When I was younger and trying out a few other faiths, I was literally mystified by groups like the Quakers, who seem to be the opposite of the Catholics in terms of rigid structure and centers of authority. You raised a perspective I don't often consider, that the "church" is just the people assembled.

Of course, I readily admit my problems with the church and religion are very personal and run deeper than an intellectual argument.

You mentioned how I felt when the abuse scandals came to light. Part of me was relieved. I always thought of priests as arrogant, generally weird men who -- among the dozen or so I had come to know on a first-name basis from childhood through about age 16 -- seemed a little different and kind of frightening to me.

I know three priests personally involved with sexual inappropriateness with children (I heard them say things that, if a teacher had said it to a child here in 2010, a teacher would probably have been suspended or investigated). When I started typing that sentecne I typed "one priest," but before I finished typing two more popped into my head. Now I'm thinking of men of my father's generation who were educated by priests and subjected to severe physical abuse, against which they were powerless to defend themselves (if you strike a priest, only the bishop can forgive that sin, we were taught -- no I'm not kidding).

When the abuse scandal started to emerge and people started to realize just how many priests were pederasts and bullies, I felt humiliated about the respect and deference we were taught to show them, and angry about the arrogant condescension I heard in homilies for hundreds of Sundays of my childhood condemning such sins as not going to church regularly, eating meat on Friday during Lent, or coveting your neighbors' goods. Physical abuse and torture committed by the clergy apparently wasn't as grave as these sins.

The other hypocrisies of the church then became more obvious to me and more difficult to ignore. This coincided with the end of my teenage years, beginning college, and generally questioning everything the way you do at that age. My favorite was always -- Blessed are the Poor, says the pope, from the throne in his castle in his own private country filled with priceless masterworks of western art. I was chagrinned I hadn't really given it much thougth before.

I guess like many people my choice became clear -- try to change the church from within, ignore the many evils and injustices the church is responsible for or tolerates, or leave. The church never seemed to need me, I was always told that you belong to the church because it's your duty (basically to stay out of hell). Once I stopped believing, I had no more need for this.

Now --- after my screed about hypocrisy, here's an interesting thing. One of these days I hope to have children. And when I do, my father is going to want my child to be baptised in the Catholic church. I know this because my sister who feels similiar to the way I do, just went through this process with her daughter. Will I do it? I might. Because the church doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's been such a part of my life and family traditions that I might be faced with the choice of having a harmonious relationship with my family or standing up for my principles. I really like my family, so after all this I may yet just hold my nose...

I guess my questions and skepticism follow two branches of thought: One -- that churches, as insitutions, are groups that I have come to associate with people who are fearful, judgmental and bigoted, and they use their membership in a church to justify their sour feelings toward people who do not share their views. Catholics against Jews, Lutherans against Catholics, Black churches vs. gays, any fundamentalist group vs. intellectuals, Muslims against non-muslims. Membership in a church is so often summed up by the question: "Who are we?" with the answer "We're not those other people..."

Second -- the Bible. And this comes from my background in literary criticism: I wonder if fundamentalists have it right, in a sense. How can you take the Bible any way other than literally? My understanding (and here you'll probably need to correct me) is that the Bible itself states that it is its own authority (quick Google search, Jeremiah 1:9?, 1 Thess. 2:13, for example?) To me, the Bible says that you are not allowed to go outside the text for answers. The answers are here...
But as I've mentioned and as many many people have wrestled with over millenia, the Bible does not provide answers, just questions and logical leaps. So, if we accept that Christ was crucified, mustn't we also accept that people like me will be cast into a Lake of Fire, that it's OK to slaughter the children of your enemies and that women are subservient to men? The earth was made in six days? If the creation story didn't really happen like it was written, then what about the Passion? It seems that the Bible itself gives us the choice -- accept it wholesale, or not at all.
So my question is, if you don't give the Bible a literal, fundamentalist interpretation, doesn't that make you a moral relativist, and, therefore, by the Bible's own rules, not a Christian?