Catholicism Succumbs to the Culture of Narcissism

Section 1983 Blog has a post about Catholic League v. City and County of San Francisco, a frivolous case in our frivolous times.  In Catholic League, the Catholic Church sued because the City of San Francisco hurt Catholics' feelings.  Suing for hurt feelings is only more evidence of our culture of narcissism.  

Thinking about the lawsuit reminded me of a passage from from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

In the exercise of domestic jurisdiction, the nobles of Rome express an exquisite sensibility for any personal injury, and a contemptuous indifference for the rest of the human species. When they have called for warm water, if a slave has been tardy in his obedience, he is instantly chastised with three hundred lashes: but should the same slave commit a wilful murder, the master will mildly observe, that he is a worthless fellow; but that, if he repeats the offence, he shall not escape punishment.

That's the culture of narcissism.  Hurt someone else...No big deal.  Fail to bend to our whim...Lashings!

Rape children?  No big deal.  Confess your sins, and we'll transfer you to another parish.  Call us bigots?  We're filing a lawsuit!

The Church has become part of the culture rather than something separate from the culture.  Blurring the line between church and state has not turned the United States into a theocracy.  Instead, it's turned Catholicism into the Church of Narcissism.  

It is the Church, not the state, most is need of separation of church and state.

Comments

[John Kindley]

It wasn't the Catholic Church that sued, but a Catholic group called the Catholic League. The group objected to a government's public resolution calling on the Catholic Church to withdraw its "discriminatory and defamatory" directive to Catholic Charities to stop placing children for adoption in homosexual households. Honestly, what business does a government, funded by taxpayers, have making such a public resolution? Sounds like a legitimate violation of the Establishment Clause to me. In any event, it seems that more than "hurt feelings" is involved.

[Mike]

Did the Catholic League sue the Catholic Church over child molestation? I think not. It's a shell game. I am not falling for it.

And, yes, the case does involve hurt feelings. So San Franciso bitched out some Catholics. Big deal. Get over it.

But Catholics can't get over it, can they? Culture of narcissism. How dare they say that about us and our leaders!

To use the words of a long-dead philosopher: Turn the other check. Crying in the courts over hurt feelings is as unchristian as it gets.

So the lawsuit is ridiculous as every angle. It's contrary to biblical teaching. And it's just plain pathetic and needy.

[John Kindley]

What if the City of San Francisco issued a public resolution calling on the Catholic Church to stop spreading the "pernicious lie" that there is life after death, on the grounds that it distracts citizens from their proper focus on the here and now? Or issued a public resolution calling on athiests to stop spreading the "pernicious lie" that God is dead, lest the people despair?

Now if you on this blog called on Catholics or athiests to do the same thing, I might disagree, but I wouldn't raise an eyebrow. I certainly wouldn't support anybody suing you over it. But when the government does it, it's different, and not okay. Now, if the government decides (albeit immorally) to actually outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by private organizations (including religious organizations), so be it. Force and violence is its essential function, after all. But other than that, it should keep its mouth shut and its religious opinions to itself. It's bad enough that taxpayers are forced to pay for its force and violence, whether or not they agree with it. They shouldn't have to pay for the half-baked preaching of its mouthpieces as well.

[Mike]

John: Who cares? That's a serious question. So what if the city is attacking your religion or lack thereof? Go cry yourself to sleep.

Suing is pathetic and narcissistic.

[Mike]

I don't mean to be flip in the comment above.

But one of many points of my post was this: Get a life, man. Seriously.

So SF issues a resolution against your church's policies. Big deal. Drink some wine, go to bed, wake up and go feed people at a homeless shelter or something.

Moreover, where in the Bible does it say that one should sue when the state makes you butt hurt?

The lawsuit is thus unchristian. If Christians want to be taken seriously, then they (you?) should start acting like Christians. At the least, this means living according to the Bible.

I can show you what the Bible says about filing lawsuits. It's all negative. Where is the support for the proposition that Christians should be filing lawsuits rather than turning the other cheek? The Bible even mentions that Christians are going to be outcasts. Yet Christians then sue when treated as outcasts. What total nonsense Christianity has become!

Moreover, the Catholic Church for decades covered up child molestation. Of all the things to worry about...A damned resolution?

Thus, the point of my post stands: The lawsuit is the product of narcissism. Priests for decades molested children with impunity. The Church did not have a problem with that. After all, the injury was to someone else.

But God save the person who dares to issue a resolution against the Church. That slight is personal, and must be vigorously fought against.

Textbook narcissism.

[John Kindley]

I don't take issue with your general criticism of the Catholic Church, especially regarding its response to child molestation within its ranks. There's a reason I'm no longer a Catholic. And I agree that in general people, whether Christian or not, should whenever possible avoid running to the government to resolve their disputes against other people. Maybe the Catholic League is populated by narcissists, who would have more credibility if they had been as concerned about their Church's response to child molestation as they are about this resolution, and whose time would be better spent feeding the hungry.

But we, Christian and heathen alike, should also be concerned about government overreaching. This "damned resolution," and the fact that the City of San Francisco thought it was within its rights to issue it, is the symptom and the manifestation of something greater within the culture. It's not something we should turn a blind eye to with a little wine and a good night's sleep. In the same Amendment that contains the Free Speech Clause is the Establishment Clause. A "person" didn't "issue a resolution against the Church." A government did. Too bad the ACLU didn't file this lawsuit instead of the Catholic League.

[Mike]

John: We are talking about two different things.

1. Yes, what SF did was wrong. We agree on this point, although you keep repeating it as if we disagree. SF was wrong.

2. My point, which you haven't even addressed: It's pathological to sue for such trivialities. This is especially so in light of a) Biblical teachings on lawsuits and b) the Catholic Church's speck in its own eye.

That Catholics seem more concerned with SF hurting its feelings than with priests raping children is narcissistic.

[John Kindley]

You hadn't said yet that you thought SF's resolution was wrong. Granted, you didn't say you thought it was okay, either. The first point in your last comment clarifies that we're in agreement on that issue.

I don't necessarily disagree with your second point, except for your contention that SF's public resolution was trivial. Generally, I'm inclined to applaud whenever the government is taken to task for doing what it has no right to do, even when it's taken to task by narcissists or hypocrites. That's just how I roll. It doesn't necessarily mean that I applaud the narcissists and hypocrites themselves.