The Theocratic Intolerance of Catholicism
This post is written with a sense of urgency, and will therefore be short. According to A Celebration of Women,
The Honduran Congress is about to vote on a proposal that would send women to jail if they use the morning-after pill — even for victims of sexual assault. But the President of the Congress can stop this. He’s concerned about his international image and his future in politics, so our massive outcry can shame him and stop this attack on women.
Click here to sign the petition: http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_prison_for_contraception_global/?vl
(You should read the whole article, of which this is the opening, and sign the petition.) That this proposal is the result of religious — mainly Roman Catholic — lobbying, there can be little doubt. The Roman Catholic Church has developed, over the last two or three decades, into an increasingly active, militant polticial force, seeking to have its moral prescriptions and prohibitions written into law, or retained in law, if they are already there. The fundamental reason for this, I suspect, is that the church senses that it is losing control of its own members. Involving them in an intolerant stance towards their neighbours may be a risky strategy, but it is one that is written into the title documents of the faith.
This Christian intolerance, typical during almost the entire history of the church, needs to be opposed by all people, whether believers or nonbelievers. But Christians must begin looking more closely at the character of their faith. It seems that there is, written into the founding documents of the Christian faith, an inveterate need to impose upon others their own beliefs and moral imperatives. The role that this plays in religious faith is worthwhile investigating, since it seems likely that it is the primary way in which religions — not only Catholicism or Christianity — hold on to and control their followers.
In a very necessary book, Gerd Lüdemann, the German New Testament scholar, has warned us about Christianity’s tendency towards intolerance. In this book, Intolerance and the Gospel, Lüdemann addresses himself to specific texts spread throughout the New Testament canon which show that intolerance was, as he puts it “a characteristic feature of the church in the New Testament.” (197) I call this feature theocratic intolerance, for reasons that will become clear. He says that
If the polemics, excoriations, and vile slanders against the opponents show us anything, it is that damnations of others constituted a large part of the identity of the proto-orthodox churches of the New Testament. [197; my italics]
And, moreover, Lüdemann alleges,
those under attack seem to have been more inclined to tolerance than the proto-orthodox bishops and church functionaries, particularly in view of their willingness to develop the deposit of faith in order to meet the challenges of changing experience and critical thought. [197-98; my italics]
– a thought which he follows up with the claim that
the almost democratic character of the Gnostic Christian communities aroused suspicion, for the central issue was power and authority, perquisites the bishops were clearly unwilling to share. [198; my italics]
Which is why he asks, at the outset:
Given the intolerant character of the scriptures and creeds on which Christian churches are founded, one is entitled to question what role they can properly play in a pluralistic society. If they are not to die [or, at least, I should add, if they should not be helped to die], must they not undergo a change that will totally transform their biblical foundation? [23]
It is events like those threatening in Honduras at the moment, or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ plan to urge Catholics to practice civil disobedience in the two weeks prior to July 4th this year, that make this question a very urgent one indeed. It is high time that Christianity, Islam and other religions be recognised for the intolerant systems of belief and social control that they are, and high time for people to issue their strenuous ”Non placet!” in face of the many repeated and increasingly frequent attempts that are being made to use their power to impose their morality on others who do not share their priorities.
Posted on 14 April 2012, in Intolerance, Misogyny, Religion and harm, Religion and law, Religious Morality, Roman Catholic Church, Theocracy. Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.
Opposition to the morning after pill is based, in part, on ignorance of biological processes. Actual conception takes place far longer after intercourse than most people realise. As a consequence, those who believe that ‘life begins at conception’* mistakenly equate the morning after pill with abortion.
*Life does not begin at conception, conception is merely an important step in a continuous process.
Signed.
“The Roman Catholic Church has developed, over the last two or three decades, into an increasingly active, militant polticial force, seeking to have its moral prescriptions and prohibitions written into law, or retained in law, if they are already there. The fundamental reason for this, I suspect, is that the church senses that it is losing control of its own members. ”
No question about the events — although the Catholic Church has sought political power for centuries — but I wonder if you have cause and effect the wrong way round? My impression is that as moderate and intelligent people are leaving the Church (and in fact all churches), those that remain are proportionally more unteachable, more outraged and more prone to political agitation. It may be that the Church is merely responding to the intentions of its dwindling membership in making these arrogant, Quixotic gestures.
I also suspect that since political parties in the West are suffering from the same kind of declining support, they are more inclined to enter into alliances with groups like the Church which can still provide them relatively large numbers of undiscriminating followers.
Interesting point, corio37.
I’ve signed this, by the way. It seems the goal of 400,000 signatures was more than met!
Life began once, a billion or so years ago, and is carried through continuously from sperm and egg to zygote to organism to sperm and egg again (even more simply in asexual reproduction). When the human being begins is another question, to which the answer has to be – well after conception. When it begins to be able to suffer is yet another question, at the heart of the ethical dilemma of abortion, which these absolutists do not address.
I was interested to find out how large a role the Catholic Church plays in Honduras. I found this
“The constitution guarantees religious freedom and the separation of church and state; however, the Roman Catholic Church has been a powerful institution in Honduras since colonial times.” http://countrystudies.us/honduras/57.htm
Thank you for posting this Eric; I alerted Canadian Atheist readers as well . As Tim Martin points out, the 400,000 signatures has been met and exceeded. Let’s try to make the number 1,000.000.
It is now over 500,000 signitures, which gives me a small sense of hope.
Corio (#3) — I don’t think so, that is, I don’t think I’ve got the causality going the wrong way. Taking moral stands that pit the church or the mosque against the world is the most effective way of keeping members. The stronger, and lest relenting the stand, the more hold they have over those who are teetering on the edge. It’s that added little bit of threat that does the trick. People ask themselves, “Can I really be sure?” I don’t have empirical evidence for that — aside from my own observations over the years. Strict morality controls. It makes people afraid. And if you can get it expressed in the law … One of the “arguments,” repeated again and again in the debate in the Canadian House of Commons on assisted dying, was that it was illegal! I know it beggars imagination, but that was used as a trump again and again.
Yes the “catholic” church has now become the patriarchal totalitarian organization that it was always destined to be.
It is now controlled by opus dei and other right-wing “traditionalist” outfits.
Both Ratzinger and the previous pope engineered the very systematic takeover process. The machinations of of which (and the all the way down the line cultural implications) are described by Matthew Fox in his recent book The Popes War Against the Church
Thank you John for the reference to Fox’s new book. I must have a look. There’s an interesting book by a Canadian teacher, who had once been a nun, I believe, entitled, Is the Pope Catholic? — to which her answer is no — based on the Catholic Church’s failure to recognise women, and, I believe (it’s a long time since I read it) sexual minorities, as full members of the church in every respect.
Is the Pope Catholic? was written by Joanna Manning, a former Holy Child nun and teacher for 25 years. Toronto’s Archbishop, Aloysius Ambrozic, ordered her removed from teaching religion. See http://www.joannamanning.com/bio3.html
Pingback: To Make you think as a church… « A Robin Hood's Musing
Pingback: The Theocratic Intolerance of the Catholic Church | Tangled Up in Blue Guy
Pingback: The Dislike of Catholicism: Understanding the Holy in the Catholic Tradition, 3 – Theological reasons « Earthpages.org
Pingback: The Dislike of Catholicism: Understanding the Holy in the Catholic Tradition, 4 – Social and Political reasons « Earthpages.org