True, the Catholic Church has its problems. Not even Catholics deny that.
But the way you present the information in your post is a little too familiar to the way the Watchtower condemns others. Are you responding to the book itself or did the little bit you read from the media supply you with enough information to speak authoritatively on the subject?
One has to keep in mind that anti-Catholicism is allowed in our culture, even in the media. Anti-Semitism is a little bit more controlled these days (though it still happens), and people are finally raising their voice to stop anti-homosexual rhetoric. But how often do we notice that the media gets things wrong when it comes to Roman Catholicism?
In fact, the Pope didn’t “o.k.” condoms in this instance anymore than he ever said condoms can’t medically stop the spread of HIV. But the news reports both incidents this way because, well, who wants to read the Pope gives theological examples of what theoretically illustrates how to use moral guidelines prudently in respects to condom use? Or really wants to read that the Pope was only replying to a question regarding condoms being a panacea for the AIDS pandemic in Africa? Neither are exciting news.
In Catholicism, unlike the Witnesses, unless a teaching is a dogma, moral objectives are subject to the variables in which they are subjected to in human affairs. While “no-contraception” is a moral objective of virtue, there are situations in human affairs in which a contraceptive device or medication could actually be put to the use of a moral good. These are never ordinary circumstances, however. The Pope merely mentions one to give an example how this is applied. But since people generally don’t know how Catholics apply moral doctrines and the difference between their obeying dogma and applying moral objectives they thus become an easy target for a world that is always looking for a new “scapegoat.”
We don’t seem to do well without someone or something to hate in this world, without a "them" that we can view as being against "us."
Also, it’s never been proven that the anti-Catholic stories about the papal figure that is under consideration for canonization was an anti-Semite. Though he did not make any formal pronouncements against Hitler, he did hide many Jews within the Vatican state and, reportedly, within the Vatican itself. He didn’t show vocal support either for Hitler. Could it be he was being silent to avoid drawing attention to the fact that he was hiding so many Jewish people to save them from death in the concentration camps? It might not matter to you, but it matters to those people and their children and grandchildren who are glad he did. Would you feel the same way about him if you were one of those children whose parents or grandparents had been thus hidden by this pope?
Finally, the Catholic Church uses the term “gay” sparingly. It is different from their use of the term “homosexual.” In Catholic terms a person who is “gay” is both sexually active as a homosexual and part of the gay movement, often a visible part of the gay community. Men who are thus a part of this lifestyle (not meaning those with just the sexual orientation) are not permitted to take part in the Roman Catholic priesthood. And, because media tends to mix the terms up and does not understand they mean different things to Catholics, the Church has advised that those men with a homosexual orientation who are ordained but are faithful to their vows do not need to come forward and expose themselves as if they are anything different from their heterosexual fellow priests in the ministry.
But to put it the way you do, I agree with you that it does sound horrible. But is it just a way you are reporting it and am I sugar coating it the way I am mentioning it?
Just a few more things to show what I am trying to illustrate:
1. The Pope is reported as saying “NO CONDOMS WHATSOEVER.” The people say: “BOO!”
2. The Pope is reported as saying “CONDOMS IN SOME SITUATIONS.” The people say: “BOO!”
3. The pope of the Hitler era is criticized for not speaking outwardly against Hitler. The people say: “BOO!”
4. If that pope had said something and Hitler had attacked the Vatican state, all those Jews that the pope was hiding there would have been discovered. If the pope’s actions back then had revealed the hiding Jews, what would people be acting like toward that pope? “BOO!”
5. The current Pope says if those who are heavily engaged in the gay world and gay sex should not be priests. Again we hear: “BOO!”
6. The Pope tells those priests in the ministry who are homosexual that there is no need to consider themselves any different with a need to reveal themselves as long as they remain faithful to their calling. Again: “BOO!”
We boo the Pope for allowing men who had a thing for boys to remain in the priesthood. We boo when he tries various ways to stop it. We boo when he says YES and we boo when he says NO.
The Pope can’t seem to win. This is odd.
I’m not saying we should all become cheery Bambi-eyed fans of the Vatican, but I do think a lot of us have more prejudice and bigotry in places and toward people than we realize. A lot of this may be old Watchtower rhetoric that we just did not get rid of. When we hate somebody and something regardless of what they do, then it may not, I STRESS, may not be their actions we hate. We may be hating them.
And if we hate somebody, regardless if they do good or bad, then isn’t that bigotry? Isn’t that being prejudiced?
We won’t stand for it when someone says something like this about Jews or gays, but lately it seems to be okay to say things just as bad as long as it is about the Pope or Catholics.
Again, I'm not saying the Catholic Church doesn't have sins it has to answer for. But again I ask: Have you read the entire book yourself and you are here RESPONDING to it or are you just REACTING to the media as if what tidbits you got from these reports give sufficient data to come to an objective conclusion?
