No, I’m not a member of Opus Dei; they said I was too conservative.  However, as one of the Self-Promulgated Goodest Expat Catholics in Guatemala, I’ve gotten enough taunting and accusatory emails and phone calls that I thought I should say a few things about some recent headlines.

First, a rhetorical question;  ”Is it possible to have a worse PR team than the Vatican?”  Even Tiger does better.  Sure, we all know the Vatican has lots of enemies, but when you’ve screwed up big time you don’t go on offense.  It would be better to just be silent.

Secondly, it’s only going to get worse.  The same policies that led to widespread abuse in the US and UK are very likely to be uncovered in Germany and Eastern Europe, so accept that and deal with it.  Stop digging.

Third, admit the problem and deal with the fallout rather than letting celibacy take the hit.  Many Catholics have long known that a substantial number, perhaps half, of priests are homosexuals.  Those Bishops who are homosexuals naturally protect and promote their brethren (being fellow persecuted).  It’s also widely known that an overwhelming number of abuse victims are boys, and further, that a majority of those are teenagers.  I’ve been celibate before and I never thought about buggering.

Now, I know you libs are going ballistic over this, but count to twenty.  Now read on.

The Church relaxed its standards in the 1960s as seminary enrollee numbers fell.  The result was that a lot of men who should not have been let in were accepted because the Church was growing and they needed the Priests.  This has happened before, most notably in the 14th and 15th Century, following the devastating effect of the Black Plague in Europe.  That mistake led to the abuses which in part led to the Reformation, and today’s abuses are likely to lead to continued mass departures from the Church.  Will Protestants benefit?  Perhaps, but they’re in trouble too.  Can Papists count on another Guadalupe to even up the numbers?

So as with the Priest deficit 600 years before, the Church let a lot of bad guys in.  Some were homosexual, some were not.   Regrettably, the Church is so PC that it refuses to admit both that it has a ‘homosexual problem’ (2% of the population but 50% of clergy), and that most of these abuse situations are consensual situations between Priests and teenage boys.  Not exactly a great PR counter-offensive, “Yeah, but they were 15 and not 5″.

Okay libs, count to thirty.

Not all of the abuse victims are teenagers or even boys, but most are.  So while we’re talking about a horrific topic, let’s be precise and say that a Priest having sex with a 15 year-old isn’t the same as a 5 year old.  Everyone knows that terrible things happen in life but what really makes people sick is the revelation that Bishops protected and enabled these guys.  Some of them obviously wanted to just cover up and protect the criminals.  Others looked to Rome for guidance and didn’t get any.  Still others knew what should have been done and were too weak to do it, fearing the scandal it would cause.

Someone once asked me how the Church could dare even to presume to have jurisdiction on these matters.  I was perplexed to the extreme; “You know that the Church claims jurisdiction over the immortal souls of men and you are confused that they claim temporal jurisdiction?”  Silence.

The other day I heard someone say that they had left the Church because of these revelations.  I didn’t know whether to call the person an idiot or simply have pity on them.  After all, the first Pope denied Christ and we’ve had a lot of other bad ones since then, certainly many worse than any recent Popes.  Secondly, who believes in what the Church teaches simply because the guy in white is a nice guy?  That’s like saying you’re an atheist because of Richard Dawkins’ humility.  Think, people. I understand the abuse problem is just as bad here in Latin America but that cultural pressures prevent most from speaking out.  That’s really awful since at least in the US and Europe these issues are getting aired, the victims will get recognition/compensation, and everyone has to accept and deal with the problem.  If not dealt with it will fester and become worse.

Of course, for the enemies of the Church it makes for a lot of fun.  Yeah, there are a lot of bad Priests who should’ve been drawn and quartered, and yeah, there are a lot of bad bishops who should have been excommunicated, and yeah, there are a lot of people in the hierarchy who care more about protecting the Church than helping victims.  That selfishness has been with us since Judas.  It’s sad to see that despite how ‘advanced’ man has become we really aren’t any better.  It gives the atheists more ammunition.  Why if we are constantly evolving to a higher state aren’t we becoming ‘better’?

Speaking of which, in a recent ‘dialogue’ I found myself at a table with two atheists and an agnostic.  The accusations against the Church, Catholics, Christians and believers in general were many and varied.  Few were substantive (caricatures being preferred), but one of the interesting questions was how I could remain so calm and still believe in the face of such horrible news, (the questioner presuming that I thought buggery was ‘not cool’).

My first answer was that belief in a creator doesn’t carry with it the delusion(s) that atheists wish that it did.   Secondly, all these abuses have been foretold, so as terrible as they are they are no surprise.  Third, I believe in Justice whereas the atheist can only believe in the injustices of this life.

No punishment a civil court can offer will ever bring back a dead person or restore a victim to their innocence.  The atheist rightly recoils at this and rages because he understands the inequity and has no answer (just as he has no answer for anything).  Even death as a punishment offers little consolation, and certainly no justice.

However, the believer understands that there is a point to suffering, and further, that there is perfect justice.  No, not in this life. So I remain calm because I know that justice will be done.  I finish with an exchange from my recent dialogue:

Santiago:  So what if you die and there is no God?  Would you be disappointed?

DM:  Yeah, I guess I missed out on a lot of fun here.

Santiago:  LOL!  I guess so, you idiot.

DM:  So what if YOU die and there IS a God?

Santiago:  Uh…I guess I’m screwed.

DM:  I guess so.

El Blogador recently posted studies showing that atheists are smarter than the rest of us and that those of us who believe in God do so because of our own paranoia.  He didn’t mention if the studies measured the arrogance of high IQ atheists.

I smiled at the post because I had just come from a bar where I found myself engaged in a lively discussion with three atheists and one agnostic.  The agnostic was largely quiet, commenting only occasionally to scoff at the more absurd assertions by the atheist.  I thought I’d share an accurate, if not literal, excerpted version of the dialogue:

Atheist 1:  So you’re probably one of those evolution deniers, right?

DM:  No, I’m open on the question of the method God uses to create things.

Atheist 2:  But God and evolution are mutually exclusive!

DM:  Prove it.

Atheist 1:  Well, that’s just a cop out.

DM:  No, you asserted it and evolution dogmatists state it is a fact, so prove it.  I hold that God created time and matter and I am less interested in the technique, just as I am more interested in getting another glass of wine than I am in the technique the bartender uses in pouring.

Atheist 2:  But you hold to a theory which can’t be proven.

DM:  So do you.

Atheist 3:  That’s not true, evolution is proven.

DM:  I disagree.  Many high IQ, atheist scientists believe the common understanding of the evolutionary theory-Darwinism-is severely flawed.  And unlike most scientific work, it can’t be tested.  It’s a theory that is unproven.

Agnostic:  That’s a good point.

DM:  Thanks.

Atheist 2:  No it’s, not, stop encouraging him.  Do you think gravity is a theory?

DM:  No, I accept gravity.  I consider it proven.  I can knock your beer off the table and prove it; will you kindly prove evolution to me?

Atheist 1:  You’re a smart guy, are you telling me you really believe some all powerful narcissistic genie character with no beginning and end snapped his fingers and created all this?

DM:  You’re a smart guy, are you telling me that everything came from nothing?

Atheist 1:  That’s absurd.

DM:  Yeah, that was the point I was making.  You have faith in a theory you cannot prove and you mock the faith I have in a theory I cannot prove.

Atheist 2:  Oh, don’t give us that BS faith thing, reason and faith are not the same thing.

DM:  I didn’t say they were, but my reason tells me that since everything we know of has a beginning and an end, and that everything in motion was put in motion, then reason tells me something was there at the beginning capable of both creative power and potency and if you believe in the big bang, then what was the cause of the big bang? Nothing?

Atheist 1:  Matter was there.

DM:  And the matter was created how?

Atheist 1:  It was always there.

DM:  And how do you know that?

Atheist 1:   Uh…

DM:  And what caused the matter to spontaneously fall in on itself and create the density required to trigger the big bang?

Agnostic:  Oh, this is getting good…

Atheist 2:  Well, I just think there was no ‘beginning’ such as you describe, that you’ve gotten us to accept your premise of a First Cause.

DM:  Well, that’s your problem.  Do you have an alternative explanation for how everything began and how all things came to be in motion?

Atheist 3:  But evolution makes a lot of sense, it explains a lot of things that we seek the answers to.

DM:  So does a Creator, but you reject Him and mock those of us who don’t blindly follow your secular faith.

Atheist 1:  Oh, here we go with the atheist faith fallacy…

DM:  You believe evolution is so superior to God simply because it takes place slowly and started from some primordial soup whose origins you can’t explain.  Think about that for a moment.

Agnostic:  That’s a good point, did you come up with that?

DM:  No, with my 136 IQ I’m an intellectual midget compared to you geniuses who are unburdened by the paranoia I carry around.

Atheist 2:  I don’t think you really believe this stuff, you just like polemics.

DM:  You have a love affair with facts but fear/ignore the truth.

Atheist 2:  What’s that supposed to mean?

DM:  You’ve been indoctrinated into empiricism and adhere to said rules like I (occasionally) adhere to the Sacraments but these facts, which are often wrong due to human error or prejudice, don’t really explain anything in terms of truth.

Atheist 2:  Okay, I’ll bite; “What is truth”.

DM:  Facts are things that can be observed and measured, but in themselves don’t explain things.  You may interpret them and reach conclusions which you, given that you are an atheist, naturally believe will be both true and factual and above reproach, but you still have not necessarily found truth.  So much of evolutionary theory is based on untested, in fact, untestable theories, but instead is one generation after another of theory which assumes the accuracy of a predecessor’s theories.  They can’t test evolution in a lab, all they can attempt is deduction based on the little data they have.  Have you ever read the conclusions brilliant scientists have reached merely by looking at drawings on a cave wall?  They deduce all sorts of things that cannot be inferred by the drawings but which happen to align with the scientists’ preconception of what a cave man was like.

Agnostic:  Can you give me something practical?

DM:  Well, take global warming.  It has been believed to be true by millions and even now is held to by some people who you would otherwise consider to be intelligent and rational.  And yet, the facts have either been faked or wrongly interpreted.  Almost nothing the scientists involved have represented is ‘true’.  Sure, some temperatures have been rising, and so they concluded this was the result of man-made global warming, but it turns out that an objective review determined those readings to be disproportionately located in areas of substantial urban growth.  It would be like taking the temperature of human beings but only those who had just finished exercising in the desert, and then concluding that the average human temperature is about 101.  Besides, the earth is actually cooling, and the temperature increases that were authentic started before the industrial revolution, a minor problem if you believe human industrial activity is the cause of global warming.

Agnostic:  Interesting.

Atheist 1:  Let’s return to this atheist question because if we continue down this path you’ll use your theology to trick us into debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

DM:  Don’t you know?

Atheist 1:  Sigh.

Agnostic:  How many is it, oh great one?

DM:  One.

Atheist 1:  So, you’ve managed to change the subject but evolution really is proven, we have the missing link.

DM:  No you don’t.  Where is the animal that was a transition between monkey/chimp/gorilla to man?

Atheist 2:  It’s not that simple.

DM:  Right.  Let me ask this, it’s evolutionary theory that animals (including man) adapt and evolve and develop these genetic traits based on experience and environment, right?

Atheist 3:  That’s reasonable.

DM:  Well, if I stopped wasting my time drinking in these dive bars and instead was working out at the gym and developed massive muscles, does that mean that when my child is born he will have large muscles?

Agnostic:  LOL.

Atheist 2:  Of course not, but if your son and his son and so on for many millions of years did this then their children would, over time, become stronger.

DM: Can you prove that?

Atheist 3:  Well….how else would you explain things?

DM:  Doesn’t it make more sense that through the history of mankind those who were best suited to a particular environment prospered and those who were ill-suited either died off or moved on to a less challenging environment, kind of like what happens in these conversations?

Atheist 1:  You’re an a$$hole.

DM:  Perhaps, do you think that’s genetic or have I adapted to my environment?

Agnostic:  I love it!

Atheist 2:  So how do you explain all this genetic and DNA evidence that tends to support evolutionary theory?

DM:  I don’t know, maybe there is some evolution in our history, but you all believe scientists are infallible while I think they are human with a propensity to seek answers that will support the conclusions they’ve already reached….

Atheist 1:  No, that’s what close minded theists do.

DM:  …like Global Warming, which was never anything more than a humanist religion, now known to have been a total fraud.  There need be no conflict between faith and reason, but for the secularist, they must be mutually exclusive, because they have decided there is no God and must develop evidence to support this theory, however unlikely or unproven the theory is.

Agnostic:  Why didn’t I ever hear any of this in Sunday School?

DM:  Because many believers, whether atheist or theist, are comfortable with their presumptions and don’t want them tested.  It represents a threat to their core values and the worldview, and they reject information contrary to what they would like to believe.

Atheist 1:  I’ve spent a lifetime watching fools of every stripe worship their gods and then steal and murder and lie and cheat and I think you’re a fool for even pretending to believe as they do.  It’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen, all these Priests on their altars are no different than the Indians and their witchdoctors.  I could never debase myself to accept such foolishness, and I think you’re too smart for it.  You possess the ability to reason through things, you should be an atheist.

DM:  You mean, like you, with no answers to any questions and a belief in infallible colleagues so long as they share my presumptions?

Atheist 1:  You’re awfully arrogant.

DM:  It’s only arrogance if you’re wrong.