Saturday, March 20, 2010

Oops They Did It Again


This is my 5th or 6th serious attempt at reconciling with the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic and attended a strict Lithuanian Catholic grade school in one of the ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago. Back then, if you wanted to get ahead in life, there were really two people that you had to curry favor with: the parish Monsignor and the local Democratic ward committeeman. One could get you a good city job someday; the other could help save your soul. That power and authority led them to act with a fair amount of imperiousness that has colored my view to this day. My natural skepticism about imperious authority led me to drift from the Church immediately upon entering high school, and drove me out of the Democratic Party.

While I have given up on rejoining the Democratic Party, I have made a number of good faith attempts to rejoin the Church over the years. Each time, however, the Church would do something to drive me back out. Once, it was the Pope imploring people in Latin America not to use birth control (like it was fine for a Mexican family to have a 10th child it cannot feed). Another time, it was when the Vatican met with that lying little minion of Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz. Yet another was when Cardinal Law bunkered himself in the basement in the face of the sex abuse scandals in the Boston Archdiocese, only to get “promoted” to a new job in Rome. My libertarian views are generally at odds with Church doctrine. I do not believe in the primacy of the Pope (all men are fallible; all knowledge is subject to scrutiny and revision). I do not believe that only Catholics or Christians can get into heaven. Women should be equal participants in the Church and should become priests and even Pope if she were to be so qualified. Priests should be able to marry- CEO’s and heads of state are able to devote their full time energies to their jobs while sustaining marriages, and I don’t see why priests can’t. I am also at odds with many of the Church’s views on sexual and reproductive morality. I am pro-choice. The ban on birth control puzzles me, and, indeed is in direct conflict with other important social goals—eliminating poverty and maintaining public health. Finally, the Church’s position on homosexuality is inconsistent with my beliefs. I do not believe that God cares very much who one chooses to share a life with as long as it is loving and respectful.

Recently, the Catholic Church has attempted to lure fallen members like me back into the fold with its “Catholics Come Home” campaign. It was timely as I have begun to think more seriously about it and I answered the call despite my stark differences with important Church positions. I started attending Mass regularly and even decided to observe Lent this year (so far I’ve made it through with no lattes and no alcohol).

In my mind, Catholicism has five major components to it. The first is the theology and doctrinal beliefs—that God exists, that Jesus was the son of God and all that. The second is a value system of behavior, providing guidance on how we ought to behave with one another. The third is community—being around people with similar values. Fourth, there is ritual and all the little rules and regulations like fasting, not eating meat on Fridays, etc. that we are supposed to comply with. And finally, there is acceptance of the primacy of the Pope.

It is the value system and community that most interests me. The theological aspects are also things I wrestle with. And there is something about ritual that I also believe is primal in us, and there is something comforting about the rhythm of the Church calendar and the ritual of Mass. The primacy of the Pope is something I utterly reject, however, and I will likely never be able to become a full participant in the Catholic Church. I am a believer in democracy and equality and that necessarily implies a belief that all men and women are fallible. I will never give deference or accept as final authority any human being that has arrived at his position through nondemocratic means and is unchecked by other authorities. Sorry. No can do.

I also struggle with a God that would permit the Holocaust to have occurred. My batting average with prayers being answered is also rather low. I reject the New Testament’s emphasis on poverty and have a hard time reconciling my admiration for human achievement and goodness in the creation of prosperity and human progress that comes with it. Jesus appeared to have more concern with the poor and underclass than with the people of talent and leadership that can actually relieve human suffering.

Despite my struggles and misgivings, I began to wrestle with it in a more serious way and resolved to try to overcome them. As if on cue, the sex abuse scandals in Europe re-ignited and even threaten to connect to the Pontiff himself. And today, the Pope released his pastoral letter on the subject. I read the full text and was filled with anger. The Church still doesn’t get it. In a communication like this, to read the words, “mistakes were made” makes my blood boil. He does not acknowledge that this is a worldwide problem and has cropped up in the U.S., Latin America, Europe and elsewhere. He talks about concrete initiatives to address the situation, but the most dramatic is to ask the Church faithful to pray for a year. Huh? Particularly disturbing is the sentence that reads, “Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.” YOU should make reparation? Wow. He really doesn't get it.

Will I stay in the Church? I want to keep trying but I honestly don’t know. The leaders in the Catholic Church and the leaders of the Democratic Party have a great deal in common. They are utterly disconnected from ordinary people and they have very twisted and perverse notions of victimhood. Somehow William F. Buckley had an easier time reconciling his belief system with the Catholic Church than I do.

Monday, March 8, 2010

The Wilting West


Freedom remains under assault. In the past few weeks, President Obama has had his health care summit, which turned out surprisingly well for the Republicans. Obama was unable to paint them in a corner as “the Party of No.” Lamar Alexander provided a well-reasoned and statesmanlike rebuttal and Congressman Paul Ryan exposed the bill’s untenable financing, demonstrating that Obama’s assertions that it will not add one dime to the deficit is patently untrue. Undeterred by poll numbers that show that Americans overwhelmingly do not want this bill, Obama and the Democrats will try to ram it through using reconciliation. Obama clearly wants to cover the uninsured at any cost, and we will end up paying those costs if he is successful. While the election of Scott Brown was clearly helpful, the probability of passing this attempt to take over 17% of our economy are still in the 40-45% range, I believe.
But another little reported assault on freedom is going on in the West. Geert Wilders, a Dutch legislator, is being tried in the Netherlands for criticizing Islam. Wilders did a provocative short film entitled “Fitna” (http://www.themoviefitna.com/). The film asserts that Islam contains elements which are inherently aggressive and violent and that is what we are seeing played out in Europe and around the world. Last year, Wilders was denied entry into Great Britain because of his stance.
I recommend that you watch the movie (caution: it contains explicit violence) and decide for yourself. I believe that Wilders overstates his case, but that it is entirely appropriate to ask the question. But that is not the real issue here. The real issue is freedom of speech. Two years ago, several newspapers and bookstores (including Borders) refused to carry the pictures of the political cartoon that depicted Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. We in the West took the cowardly and disgusting step of voluntarily self-censoring. Now the Netherlands is taking it a step further and actually putting one of their parliamentarians on trial for blasphemy. Even if you believe that Wilders is an extreme wingnut, we in the West typically don't prosecute you for being a kook. If that were the case, Dennis Kucinich, Glenn Beck, Rev. Wright, Tom Cruise and about half the czars that inhabit this administration would be sweating.
How are these two items related? In the U.S. we proposing, for the first time in our history, criminalizing the failure to purchase a good or service (health care). In the Netherlands, the Dutch are criminalizing blasphemy. These two developments are an overt assault on our economic freedom and free speech and must be resisted.