Using Scandals to Excuse Bigotry and Silence Debate

Yesterday, while heading out to parent teacher conferences, I had the radio on.  It was a primarily talk station, New Jersey 101.5.  Being somewhere between 2-3 pm, Deminski and Doyle were on.  I have heard the pair cover a number of issues, sometimes controversial, other times fairly tame.  Yesterday's discussion dealt with a topic that was one of interest that I've personally heard discussed in many groups, but one that doesn't generally offend, employee dress codes.

People calling in had some of the standard issues - tattoos people got decades ago affecting their employment eligibility now, dress codes supposedly meant for safety not being enforced equally by gender, etc.  I had experienced the dress code issue personally in my college days when looking around for some part time work.  When I asked for an application at a McDonald's, I had somewhat long hair, and the woman with whom I spoke, who had even longer hair, asked me, "Would you be willing to cut your hair?"  My response as a brash, sarcastic 19-20 year old, "Depends, would you?"  Needless to say, McDonald's was not on my list of employers in my college days.

On this topic, eventually a called called in about some sort of dress code when she was working at a Catholic church.  I don't even remember what the actual requirement was, but apparently the caller and the hosts thought it was a trivial matter.  One of the hosts' responses predictably involved dress codes apparently being more of an issue than raping little boys.  Lemme guess D&D, you either:

1. Have never been a Catholic.
2. Left the Catholic Church because (insert gripe here).
3. Profess to be Catholic, but think it should be a flimsy blade of grass blowing in the wind and subject to the ever changing whims of popular culture and/or your personal preferences.

Have I hit the nail on the head?  Probably.  I didn't stick around to find out, as my initial reaction was to say to the radio what you could do with yourself (which usually requires two people).  Yes, I know I'll need to go to Confession for that, and I am sorry for that.  I have a tendency to open my mouth before proper Christian charity overrides my temper, much like Saint Peter's rush to strike with the sword - well intentioned, but still the wrong action.  That's something I can definitely work on improving this coming Lenten season.

That said, there is something to be said of the blatant anti-Catholic bigotry that exists in our current secular culture, in other religions and especially among professed but ashamed Catholics.  The last category is not unusual or exclusively Catholic.  Taken to its extreme, some of the worst atrocities in history against particular groups have been as successful as they were because of collaborators among their own.  Though indentured servitude existed in the New World before him, the first person to own lifelong slaves was a man named Anthony Johnson, a free black man.  The Holocaust during World War II owed at least some measure of its gruesome success to Jewish collaborators.  Though I cannot find the link, I will never forget reading an account of a Holocaust survivor in Ukraine who described the conditions and constant threat of death in her town.  The exits to the town were typically under guard, with some of the guards being German, others Ukrainian, and still others Jews who were members of the Judenrat.  Her description of the chances of survival for someone attempting to leave the town were, to paraphrase, pretty good when the guard was German, varied for Ukrainian and next to nothing when he was a Jew.  Current anti-Catholicism with some Catholics is nothing like that now, but more of a resentment of the Church for not keeping up with the fickle trends of the times.

For a little perspective on the sex abuse scandal in the Church, let's clear up some deliberate media-fed smoke on the issue.  For one thing, most of the abuse cases are referred to as pedophilia.  Though there were some cases in which some prepubescent children were molested, the vast majority of them involved adolescent boys, which means most cases involved homosexual ephebophilia.  Still illegal regardless of same sex or opposite sex, still wrong, but we're getting there on using more accurate terms.  Under that description, those priests should be looked at as the next Harvey Milk.  Do you think maybe Sean Penn is available to star in a movie depicting one of those priests as a hero?

Another fact ignored by both media and snarky anti-Catholic bigots always looking to joke about the abuse of minors is that not all victims were boys.  The mainstream media, the entertainment world and the sheeple willing to believe all that both those outlets tell them almost never bring that up.  I personally did, when it was found out that a defrocked priest who settled out of court on a case involving the the molesting of a girl was a supervisor with the TSA at Philadelphia International Airport.  I guess priests having sexual relations with and victimizing members of the opposite sex just doesn't quite have the same shock value, does it?

Why is that?  Are the media the real anti-gay bigots, who only care about what a priest does wrong when it involves someone of the same sex?  Or are they sexist, considering female victims to be of lesser importance?  We all know it can't possibly be because of anti-Catholic bigotry, Christophobia or Vaticaphobia (I can make up phobias and sound like a psychologist too), because those don't exist, right?

Back to the radio program, had I not had more important things to do than continue listening to the rantings of a bigoted radio host, I might have called the show with a few comments that tied into the topic of the day.  I too have come across policies that are not evenly enforced at work.  I have seen cases of people losing their jobs for making "politically incorrect" comments about sexual morality, abortion, non-Christian religions and a host of other things.  Yet, when someone makes a joking reference to priests all being a bunch of child rapists, even on a radio station that broadcasts to almost an entire state of nearly 9 million, trust me, he'll still have his job tomorrow.  It might not be dress code, but it's certainly a case of favoritism and selective enforcement of company policy.

Fact is, one abuse case, boy or girl, male or female perpetrator, is one too many.  The Church abuse scandal never should have happened, and actually was worse because we spent decades trying to be, well, like the world.  To paint priests as disproportionately disposed to molest or otherwise abuse children, however, in light of evidence showing it's just as likely to happen among teachers, government airport security, police, friends, relatives or any other group supposedly responsible for the protection of innocents is either a case of gross ignorance, deliberate deception and/or blatant anti-Catholic bigotry.  And to those who would tell me the Church needs to just shut up about such and such issue because we have no credibility after the sex abuse scandal, while ignoring every other group guilty of the same thing, do me a favor.  Change your heart, or unfriend me on any social media, lose my contact info and forget I exist.  That way you can treat me as you would treat a priest.  You obviously have a deep hatred for the Church, and I, as a layperson trying to live a faithful Catholic life, am just as much the Church as any member of the clergy.