Shh, be nice, it’s the Vatican
Randy Cohen points out an oddity:
Last week the Vatican invited Anglicans who are, as The New York Times put it, “uncomfortable with female priests and openly gay bishops” to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church. If a secular institution, Wal-Mart or Microsoft, for example, made a similar offer – Tired of leadership positions being open to women and gay employees? Join us! – it would be slammed for appealing to bigotry.
To say the least – in fact it would also be in trouble with the law, and in this administration I daresay the law is likely to be enforced. But the Vatican, of course, is well known not to allow women to do the jobs that matter and to protect pedophile priests while banning adult males who would be attracted to other adult males. That’s not okay for a secular commercial enterprise but it’s quite all right for the dear old Vatican – not exactly a good thing perhaps, but absolutely not anything to make a fuss about, much less try to change. Why? Well because Jesus…erm…had twelve guys going around with him. That’s why. If women were supposed to be priests there would have been some Mariams and Esthers mixed in with the guys. There weren’t any. Therefore, that’s how things were meant to be forever.
Yet despite the risk of provoking the ire of believers, we should discuss the actions of religious institutions as we would those of all others — courteously and vigorously. This is a mark of respect, an indication that we take such ideas seriously. To slip on the kid gloves is condescending, akin to the way you would treat children or the frail or cats…My political beliefs, my ideas about social justice, are as deeply held as my critics’ religious beliefs, but I don’t ask them to treat me with reverence, only civility. They should not expect me to walk on tiptoe. It is not as if religious institutions occupy a precarious perch in American life. It is not the proclaimed Christian but the nonbeliever who is unelectable to high office in this era when politicians of every party and denomination make a public display of their faith.
Discussion should be free and open. That’s not to say it should be stupid or merely raucous or like sitting at the lunch table with the rowdy section of the third grade class – it’s just to say it should be free and open.
Amen?
The demand for all organizations to reflect liberal values, and be arranged on liberal principles, is insane. Neither you nor the “ethicist” Cohen provide a justification for such a demand, or explain why a group you have nothing to do with must conduct itself in accordance with your feminist and homosexualist sentiments.
Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit, Carter. Cohen’s argument was that we shouldn’t have to be timid in our criticism of regressive, bigoted behavior simply because it’s cloaked behind the claim of “deeply held faith.” Nothing at all about compelling organizations to behave in a particular way. Lots and lots about calling out immoral behavior by religious institutions.
Avowedly, Confessedly, and Admittedly yours,
a Homosexualist and Feminist
Perhaps it was Carter’s interpretation of this line: “That’s not okay for a secular commercial enterprise but it’s quite all right for the dear old Vatican – not exactly a good thing perhaps . . .” which lead him to conclude that OB implied that religious organisations should be compelled to behave in certain ways.
And if she was, I agree with her. I think that in a secular society religious institutions should adhere to the same rules governing other institutions. Discrimination against homosexuals should be banned, end of story. Freedom of religion does not entail the right to discriminate.
And another thing: studies have shown that religious homophobia influences the wider society to be more negatively predisposed to homosexuals, even for the non-religious. Religious discrimination enables and normalises discrimination in the wider community, so if the government is serious about protecting the rights of people who happen to be homosexual, then it must stand up to the religionists.
The justification is that it is the right thing to do. If religions want to be free from discrimination then they must be willing to grant those same freedoms to everyone else.
Slocum: Not having women priests isn’t bigotry.
Why wouldn’t you, Cohen, and Ophelia, want the state to intervene? If what’s being done is wrong, and is something the state corrects in other other types of organizations (as both Cohen and OB note), why not extend the correction to religious organizations? It’s the logical next step. Read the comment following yours.
Parahesia: We are in agreement about liberal premises and the consequences of adopting them.
Fugate: In other words, if you don’t wish to be coerced, do as we say. Notice the Catholic Church doesn’t demand secular organizations arrange themselves according to Catholic principles.
Carter
Notice the Catholic Church doesn’t demand secular organizations arrange themselves according to Catholic principles.
Well, that’s just not true, it spends a lot of its time demanding precisely that, it just isn’t as successful as it used to be.
“Catholic Church doesn’t demand secular organizations arrange themselves according to Catholic principles.”
Um . . . history. Go and read it. And they bloody well still would if they could get away with it.
Carter, are you a newcomer to the earth, or have you been locked away since childhood? The Catholic Church not only makes demands of secular institutions, and does it all the time, it also has official representatives at the UN, and deplomats in many countries, it excommunicates politicians and others who do not follow the Vatican ‘ethical’ line, and it threatens others.
While ordinary Catholics are often lovely, caring people, the official church is one of the most regressive institutions on the face of the earth. It campaigns everywhere against equality for women. It condemns gay people as seriously defective, and their relationships as gravely sinful. It’s efforts to lure Anglican catholics into its fold is, as Hans Kung says in the Guardian today, an attempt to reassert the Roman Imperium. You may love the Roman Catholic Church for all the right reasons; at least criticise it when it shows its ugliest face.
“Well because Jesus…erm…had twelve guys going around with him. That’s why.”
According to some of the apocryphal gospels, he had plenty of women disciples. Those who established what eventually became “orthodoxy”, however, suppressed these texts.
Why shy away from asserting that we should indeed make organizations behave in certain ways?
We don’t let organizations engage in mass murder, or trafficking in slaves. We don’t let them break the law… oh, unless they’re religious organizations. There is no excuse for a double standard.
And Carter, do you REALLY think there is no justification to oppose discrimination of this sort? Does morality not matter to you? Or is morality for you arbitrary? (If it is arbitrary, it isn’t morality.)
“Not having women priests isn’t bigotry.”
It is inequality however.
“We don’t let them break the law… oh, unless they’re religious organizations.”
In the US, this fact is largely the outcome of the free exercise clause. I hate the free exercise clause.
Check this out for lousy Catholic apologism being taken to pieces
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/10/damian-thompsons-vicious-and-crazy.html
McDonald: Liberals attack men only private clubs, they object to the Boy Scouts not embracing homosexuals. The Catholic Church does not demand such organizations be arranged in accordance with Catholic priniciples.
SomeOne: Finding a moral equivalence between not having women in certain roles and mass murder is insane.
OB said: “I hate the free exercise clause.” Of course you do.
Are you claiming that the Catholic church does not try to demand what noncatholics can do? Why are they actively campaigning against gay/lesbian marriage? Why campaign against birth control use? Why against divorce? Why against abortion? Why against the death penalty? Need I go on?
I’m struck by “Liberals attack men only private clubs, they object to the Boy Scouts not embracing homosexuals. The Catholic Church does not demand such organizations be arranged in accordance with Catholic priniciples.”
They are _already_ organised according to Catholic principles. Yes?
(You obviously meant the organization of the Boy Scouts not embracing homosexuals, figuratively, rather than individual Boy Scouts not doing so literally!)
I think we can make a reasonable case that an organization that doesn’t respect human rights as defined by law, should not be exempt from paying taxes in the society whose values are expressed in those rights. And being a religious organization should certainly not be grounds for exemption. After all, religion is just made up…
Carter said: “Finding a moral equivalence between not having women in certain roles and mass murder is insane.”
Yes, but I clearly did not claim they were equivalent.
There is a moral standard involved when we decry mass murder. Likewise, there is a moral standard involved when we criticize sexism and homophobia. I’m sure you’ll agree that lying and rape are both violations of moral standards, even though the violations are very different.
Demanding that organizations behave in certain ways is not always because we merely want them to behave in those ways. Moral standards are involved.
Surely, you don’t believe that something must be as bad as mass murder before we can object to it?
Carter: yes, of course I hate the free exercise clause, because I think religions and religious institutions should have just as much right to free exercise as other institutions, and no more. I don’t think religions and religious institutions should have extra rights.
I sincerely believe all religious organisations should declare their assets to their respective peoples’; as they were/are accrued off the backs of the latter. The religious should also be held accountable for all things pertaining to their wealth. They should not be exempted from charity status – thus avoiding taxes.
The Irish government has asked Irish religious societies who were directly involved in industrial schools to come forth with their accounts. Despite the former asking them approximately six months ago -they are still stalling on the matter. So typical of the religious!
The Catholic Church is a private organization, and would be approached from that perspective. Or, if you’d rather, it’s more like a person’s home, than a public business.
There are many things people do in private families which we don’t like. Parents might refuse to allow their grown children to visit if they don’t practice the “right” religion, say. As a Catholic, you would deplore that. You would argue against it. You might write a little article in a Catholic magazine or for a secular newspaper bemoaning the lack of charity, the cruelty, the arrogance of such parents, and so forth.
And what would you think if I then wrote you and said that you have no right to criticize what people do in their own homes, and that clearly you are a fascist who wants the State to step in and forbid this by law?
You’d probably write me a nice letter and explain that no, you can criticize people for lack of moral judgment and not consider it criminal behavior. The government can’t tell people they can’t vote if they’re the “wrong” religion, and stores can’t refuse to let someone with the “wrong” religion in to shop. But private clubs and houses are different. Not all things which are immoral, ought to be illegal.
And you would probably make a very persuasive case for distinguishing between public and private, immoral and criminal.
Read that letter, to yourself.
The Catholic church isn’t really a private organization though – and it’s certainly not like an individual’s home.
I do think we should treat the Catholic Church as a purely private organisation. That means letting it be as discriminatory as it likes in how it runs its internal affairs. It also means cutting off all government subsidies and tax breaks.
That’s the cleanest solution.
But not for purposes of public discussion. For that we do, and (I think) should, treat it as very public indeed. Or rather some of us do, and everyone should feel free to.
“Why? Well because Jesus…erm…had twelve guys going around with him. That’s why. If women were supposed to be priests there would have been some Mariams and Esthers mixed in with the guys.”
What’s always struck me as strange about this excuse is that the Gospels say that some, if not all, of the apostles were married. Usually the ad hoc nature of their justifications isn’t so blatantly obvious.
Russell, is there such a thing as a purely private organisation?
How would you change the clause O.B?
It’s worthwhile, I think, pointing out that the tradition of the 12 (male) disciples of Jesus (supposing Jesus to have been a real person) is undoubtedly a comparatively late tradition. There is also the tradition of the 70, and it is well-known, apparently, to tradition, that Jesus and his disciples lived off the wealth of women groupies, of whom Mary Magdalene was perhaps the greatest. The fact that some traditions (The Gospel of Thoms, I believe) speak of Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene as more than Platonic suggests that Jesus was not a desert ascetic, and that his spirituality, such as it was, was not as life-denying as Catholic Christianity understands it.
As for treating the Catholic Church as a private institution. While I understand Russell’s point, the Catholic Church makes the pretence of speaking for everyone. Since it does so regularly and foolishly, and since it holds captive many people who have been convinced -most of them in childhood- that the Church speaks with an authoritative public voice, indeed, with the voice of God himself, its being a public institution makes it fair game for criticism and condemnation, and we should do this regularly and often.
One of the biggest problems with the free exercise clause is, as I understand it, that it makes the religious abuse of children almost inevitable. The sexual abuse of children by the religious is a corollary of that.
I never understood the rationale of not taxing churches, particularly with an establishment clause in our Constitution. We should not be enabling any religion with a free pass on taxes.
Not taxing is probably part of the free exercise clause? I’m just guessing.
Mr. Blackford:
The Mafia is an entirely private organization, but that has made nary a dent in its moral outlook, nor protected the innocent.
The Roman Catholic is by any sane measure, an amoral worldwide criminal organzation.
The biggest, richest most murderous stand-over racket in history.
It should be treated as such, which means not only making it pay taxes, but shutting it down immediately and seizing its assets, and vigorously prosecuting the thousands of clergy, especially the Pope).