My last few posts have been about things which I only partly understand — for example, universes from nothing, the relation of science, philosophy and culture — but now I want to turn in a different direction, and change the pace of discussion. A few days ago Ophelia Benson, over at Butterflies and Wheels, brought our attention to the theocratic, totalitarian, repressive streak running through Catholicism (in her post “Donohue’s success” and a later one, “Donohue to citizens: stfu“). Ophelia links to the Network for Church Monitoring, and Chapter 15 of Stephen Mumford’s book The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a US Population Policy, under the title “The Catholic League and the Suppression of the Press Today.” The chapter goes into a great deal of detail about how the Catholic League, led by William Donohue, brings its power and influence to bear on newspapers, TV networks, and other media, should they have the gall or audacity to criticise the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a disturbing story.
Mumford speaks of the principles that guide the League’s activities:
One is revealed in a vicious 1994 attack against the New London newspaper, The Day, for an editorial critical of the Catholic Church: “What is truly ‘beyond understanding’ is not the Catholic Church’s position, it is the fact that a secular newspaper has the audacity to stick it’s nose in where it doesn’t belong. It is nobody’s business what the Catholic Church does.”
The Catholic Church, then, is supposedly above criticism. What the Catholic Church does is its own business, and no one should criticise it. This goes for dissident Catholics as well as those who have no relationship to the Catholic Church. Whether the Catholic Church engages in activities that threaten the freedom of citizens is irrelevant to the point that is being made. The church itself is above criticism, and it is not the public’s business. Should they not get the point, the League will fight for the right of the church to remain above criticism, by threatening newspapers, TV channels, etc., with mass action.
Another principle, of even greater concern, is the League’s position regarding the Code of Canon Law:
A second basic premise is the League’s commitment to canon 1369 of the Code of Canon Law: “A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.” Canon law is the law of the Catholic Church. All criticism of the pope or the Church is in violation of this law in one way or another. This chapter will make clear that the League follows this canon to the letter and demands that all others conform—or pay the price for their violation.
This explains, for instance, the insistence, by Catholic bishops, archbishops and cardinals, that the law of marriage not be changed to accommodate the relationships of homosexual persons. Although according to canon 1059, “the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage,” (my italics) it is clear that, by insisting that civil authorities cannot unilaterally declare the validity of marriages between homosexuals, Catholic bishops are holding canon law to be, in effect, superior to, and determinative of, what can be licitly determined by civil law. We should not be under any illusions about the scope of canon law in terms of the church’s own self-understanding. Canon law is, in crucial respects, prescriptive for civil law.
This is particularly evident with respect to laws governing abortion and assisted dying. The very existence of legal abortion or assisted dying is offensive to obedient Catholics. (The qualification is necessary, though, in general, the church holds that dissidents have effectively excommunicated themselves by their beliefs and actions. Only those Catholics faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium are considered to be Catholic in the true sense of that word.) In a short paper entitled “Response to Our Critics,” (The Review of Politics, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Winter 2000) 43-48) the Catholics Gary Glenn (I believe the linked Gary Glenn is the co-author of this paper) and John Stack inveigh against what they call the “civil liberties” regime in the United States, which they hold to be a great danger to Catholics. (Having read this response to their critics I did not feel that reading their original paper would be a valuable use of my time, so I confine myself to the response alone.) The problem lies in the secular nature of “the constitutional order established in 1789″ (46)):
As we stated in our essay, ”the souls of Catholics were never fully safe within the constitutional order established in 1789″ because that regime dealt with the problem of religious liberty by undermining “the conviction that any particular religion is true.” [46]
Needless to say, this is an astonishing claim, both because Catholics are perfectly free to maintain their own conviction that their religion is true, and because it is clear that governments that aim to govern multi-religious societies, or societies in which some persons eschew religion altogether, cannot, and are not competent to, take a stand on the truth of any religion or group of religions (such as the so-called Abrahamic faiths).
Now, I don’t know enough about American constitutional law to pronounce upon this issue, but, since the separation of church and state was carefully crafted by Thomas Jefferson for the state of Virginia (if my memory serves), it seems a bit of a stretch to say, as do Glenn and Stark, that
Civil liberties secularism does not inevitably follow from the Founders’ Constitution because that Constitution, while informed by that liberalism [the "logic implicit in [the 'autonomous individualism' of] early liberalism”] and thus at least open to secularism, also permitted state governments to foster religion. [47]
In this context they speak a
new secular regime [which] works to abolish this state function by absorbing the originally nonsecular state governments into the intensified national regime the Court begins to create in the 1940s (what constitutional experts refer to as the “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights). The Court simultaneously, and for the first time, groundlessly declares this more nationalized constitutional order to be simply secular. [47]
I assume the Supreme Court is meant. In a footnote the authors state that they are using the word ‘regime’ in a non-pejorative sense, but it is hard to believe that they did not choose the word for its negative connotation, since, as in this case, they consider the actions of the government to be, in some sense, contrary to, and therefore a suppression of, the Founders’ intentions. And earlier they had already said:
it is worth remembering that the old regime substantially protected both freedoms [private and public] and also permitted Catholics to influence policy whether or not it comported with secularism. It is now in varying ways impermissible … to influence public policy on the basis of revealed truth that crosses secularism. [45, my italics]
But of course the issue immediately arises as to what is to constitute “revealed truth” and how we are to discern it. We cannot simply take the word of Catholics that they have special access to something thought to be revealed, since in some respect all religions hold that their beliefs and practices comport with knowledge of the divine and its purposes, and disbelievers rightly doubt that such convictions should be given the weight of the law.
This becomes very clear in the way the authors go on to speak of physician-assisted suicide. Not only do they suggest that assisted dying laws inevitably lead to slippery slope consequences; they link it directly with the Nazi Endlösung der Jüdischen Problem (the final solution to the Jewish problem) by mangling Martin Niemoller’s famous saying, making it refer to assisted dying instead of to the Jews:
First they came for those who wished to die before their God appointed time, and I was not permitted to publicly oppose them, so I said nothing. Then they came for those whose heirs wished them to die before God’s time, and my heirs did not wish to die prematurely, so I remained silent. Then they came for those who it was financially burdensome for the public to keep alive, and I was not such a burden, so I said nothing. Then they came for me. [45]
This is highly offensive! The suggestion that there is a “God appointed time” is ludicrous, otherwise, as John Donne said, how do we know, when we take medicines to cure our diseases, that we have not unknowingly cured ourselves of a disease by which it was God’s intention that we should die? But to link what is a matter of human rights to the despicable murder of millions of Jews and others is a malignant slander both against those who suffered from the Nazi’s murderous depredations, as well as against those who, for good reasons, ask for help to die. In a footnote the authors note that “Anti-Catholicism is still the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals,” which is simply a nonsense, for antisemitism is a form of religious and racial prejudice against Jews, and anti-Catholicism is, or at least can be, a perfectly legitimate criticism of Roman Catholic beliefs, as well as of Roman Catholic endeavours to prevent criticism of their beliefs or church, or to impose those beliefs on others. It may be true that, in the Roman Catholic belief system, it is believed that living in such a regime, as the authors put it, endangers their souls, but it simply does not follow that Catholics should, for this reason, be able to argue on this basis, that practices contrary to their vision of a just society should be outlawed. And yet it is precisely this that the authors are arguing: that they have a right to live in a regime which does not endanger their souls in ways understood by them to put their souls at risk. And insofar as Catholics believe this, they are a standing danger to those who do not share their beliefs.
The theocratic tendency of Catholicism is made very evident in this short response to their critics by a couple of fanatical Catholics. This is something we should not only be fully aware of, but it is moreover something against which we should guard ourselves. A pro-life nation, as the New York Times article on abortion law in El Salvador (and Malta, Chile and other nations) points out, is a nation in which the reproductive freedom of women counts for nothing, and Catholic beliefs, founded on no more than prejudice and supposed revelation, govern the lives of those who do not share them. Secular democracy is a the only known political system in which our rights as human beings can be protected, and any suggestion that secularism should exist in tension with the appeals of religious believers should be dismissed without appeal. As Ophelia says about Bill Donohue:
[Donohue is] saying that what Catholic bishops do is none of our business. Yes it is. They interfere with government. They violate their tax-exempt status by telling parishioners how to vote. They all but wrote parts of the health care bill. What they do is very much our business.
The authors conclude their response with these words:
But the new regime would destroy the possibility of any tension at all by refusing even to consider distinctly Catholic arguments. [48; my italics]
But distinctly Catholic arguments are arguments based on presuppositions which (by assumption) other people do not make. Why should such arguments be given any consideration at all, if they are based on grounds that it is assumed (this is the significance of the word ‘distinctly’ in this context) no one else shares? The only reason can be that Catholics feel that their souls would be in danger, and that is just a risk that Catholics must take if they are going to live in a free society.
On the other hand there are promising developments elsewhere (in Ireland!):
The Catholic Church is so obviously anti-liberty and anti-equality, that it boggles the mind that people still subscribe to the religion and still go around claiming to stand for some kind of ethics. It is clearly increasingly anti-democratic and anti-modern, and is as threatening to liberal democracy as Communism and Islam.
I remember growing up as a boy, constantly under the fear of IRA terrorists attacks. Which were clearly supported by the Catholic church at the time.
Pingback: Catholicism v Freedom | Butterflies and Wheels
I hadn’t heard of NSSM 200 previously. Oddly enough, Afghanistan wasn’t anticipated as being among the potentially problematic countries.
The Catholic Church is pure evil and needs to be shut down.
The 14th Amendment made it clear that the Bill of Rights governed state as well as federal law. In particular, we have Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1968:
Among other things, a law must have some justification beyond a religious belief.
Something else boggles the mind: That Glenn and Stark oppose what has long been settled law, namely the application of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to state and local governments via the 14th Amendment. “Incorporation” is usually traced back to Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) and Everson v. Board of Education, 300 U.S. 1 (1947). Never mind that one of the principal framers of the 14th Amendment, Thomas Bingham, had advocated automatic application of Amendments 1 through 8 to the states back in 1868. Never mind that American Catholics probably benefitted at least as much from the incorporation doctrine as did other religious Americans, because the application of the Free Exercise clause to the States was an important antidote to anti-Catholic bias in state and local governments in the 20th century.
I think that what you are witnessing in North America is the attempt by the Roman Catholic Church and their lackies like Donohue to impose a foreign concept of ‘Freedom of Religion’.
The definition that they want to use is the one which has long been the norm in places like the Republic of Ireland that have large Catholic majorities. Here the church sees itself as having a moral duty to impose its will on society as a whole in a dictatorship of the majority. If you have a strong stomach you can read numerous articles on this subject straight from the horses mouth – on the website of the Iona Institute, the paramilitary wing of the Irish Catholic Church.
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/
If one were to search and replace occurrences of the RCC with fundamentalist Islam in the above article, it would be impossible to tell the difference between the two.
Very interesting point, Sigmund. I wonder if Donohue himself studies the papers of the Iona Institute. It seems fair to think he is of Irish extraction…It would be interesting (and helpful) to know how much the Irish model has influenced American Catholics and by that route influenced the US government. Funny…JFK was Irish Catholic, of course, but he was a raging secularist compared to Donohue.
Secular democracy is a the only known political system in which our rights as human beings can be protected…
This part reminded me of a thought I’ve voiced before – not sure if it was on this blog or some other.
A secular government is often promoted to religious believers as something that protects believers just as much as it does anyone else, because it means that the government cannot promote another religion over theirs. I wonder, though, if members of the religious majority can ever fully get past the fact that they see their own religion as true, and their own religious values as the best values to have. Remember, the secularist argument is that secular government is good for society. But if I am a pro-life christian, I possibly believe that banning abortion is also good for society (regardless of what the evidence shows). So what logic would prevent me from trying to instantiate my religious values in law? To admit that my religious views are not defensible from a secular, rational standpoint would be to admit that my religious views are bullshit through and through.
I think Sigmund (#7) is right, and I’ve no doubt that it’s the approach Donohue and the Catlik hierarchy in general is adopting. Certainly, this piece by Iona’s director seems to suggest that http://ionainstitute.net/assets/files/Irish%20College%20talk.pdf
In a secular society you are perfectly entitled to try and instantiate your religious values in law. All you have to do is convince enough other people that your values are correct, and they will vote or otherwise take steps to change the law to reflect those values. Of course, that may be hard to do without evidence, but it has been done in the past. Anyhow, that’s YOUR problem.
What you are NOT entitled to do is to use the fact that your beliefs have a religious foundation as an excuse for bypassing the normal requirements of law-making.
corio37:
It’s not really as simple as that. That’s why we have representative (not majoritarian) democracy, and independent judiciaries and constitutions. People have no right, in a properly run democracy, to impose their religious values on others, even if they can convince a majority. There must be a reasonable secular basis for law before it is enacted. That’s why law’s against abortion are so very very contentious, since there are no reasons, by and large — Christopher Hitchens not withstanding — except religious ones, for outlawing it completely. Such prohibitions are an invasion of privacy, and an offence against a woman’s right to choose whether carrying a child to term is consistent with her life plans, whatever majorities may say. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, but it is so far a declension from democratic ideals and the rights of human beings to determine how their lives will be lived.
Sorry, I’ve been away all day in the city, and just got back recently, otherwise I would have played a bigger part in the conversation.
corio37: As Eric said, constitutions limit what can become (or remain as) law. But you’re right – the constitutions are interpreted by… people. The Supreme Court is made up of… people, who are fallible, biased, corrupt, etc. But what I’m commenting on, specifically, is the idea that we can get religious believers to adhere to, or even accept the difference between, church and state. I’m not convinced that we can. Let me have one more crack at saying why.
We try to convince people that separation of church and state is a good thing for society, and therefore “religious values” should not be endorsed by the state (unless there are secular reasons for endorsing them). However, religious people are seldom happy to say “I disagree with abortion because of a particular religious view” and leave it at that. What they try to convince themselves, and us, of is that their “religious values” are also good for society. They make the argument that abortion harms society, gay marriage harms society, assisted dying harms society, etc – so in effect they are making their religious view into a secular view, by claiming that they have rational non-religious reasons for opposing the things they do.
My question is, how realistic is it to expect believers not to do this? It seems to me – and perhaps this is just because I live in America – that the temptation is high. The cognitive dissonance is too much – for people to believe in something so strongly, and believe that they are bound by certain rules – and yet to allow everyone who doesn’t share their faith to be not bound by those rules.
It is in this way that religious believers, it seems to me, deny the Euthyphro Dilemma. They do not say that something is good or bad because God said so, and leave it at that; they say abortion is bad because God said so and look here are the (invalid) arguments that back it up. Believing in a (religiously-inspired) moral rule creates a need in their minds to come up with arguments to support that belief. At least, it seems to me that this is what often happens.
While I’m on board with the idea of promoting secularism, I’ve long thought that it wasn’t enough simply to promote this principle alone, there had to be some kind of framework so that people actually understood how important it was. Dawkins and Faircloth are hoping that secularism will bring about a consensus enough to block out the religious right in America.
But my experience so far is that it’s the non-religious that don’t care enough about secularism to put up a fight. Although most people in democracies are highly political, their politics are not based in understanding, but rather who they identify with. The intellectuals might have a better knowledge and understanding of the importance of stopping religion encroachment, but the ordinary person still sees religion as harmless.
Something like an ethical understanding, a big idea as Eric suggests, I think is still required. I big theory that brings together the entire Enlightenment project, as something that people fight for passionately.
It is so strange that Catholics love to trot out the holocaust as an example of what happens when society strays too far from their teachings. It does not take much digging to reveal what the Catholic Church’s role in WWII actually was, and it was in no way a hindrance to what the Nazis were doing.
@Tim Martin #15
I think you are very right, a live and let live approach to salvation seems very difficult for the religious minded to carry out.
I suspect that they only play at false evidence and invalid arguments because the bold revelation based authority only works on those who are already convinced. Deep down they also want to be justified by more than just their faith and end up twisting around tried and true methods of finding knowledge to suit their presuppositions.
In a comment, in response to your post “Beyond Belief!” http://choiceindying.com/2012/03/21/beyond-belief/#comment-11220, I called Catholicism “the most corrupt institution/organization in the world.” You replied “That sounds very harsh and is probably not true. But something that pretends to be a moral guide going so badly astray elicits that kind of response. It is a great betrayal of something held to be holy and good.”
I repeat my comment: the Catholic Church is the most corrupt institution/organization in the world. Name one other institution/organization that has been persecuting people for over 2000 years.
Veronica, that’s a fair comment. I’ll let it stand, and, everything considered, it now sounds more plausible to me than it did.
A interesting review of a new book about Roger Williams at NYRB (partial here/behind paywall) where he suggests how hard it is for religious believers who know the “truth” to allow others to have a different “truth.” “Truth” without evidence needs to be protected if it is to survive.
That’s a very good point Michael.
Sigmund, thanks for the link to the Iona Institute (I think!). It’s clear that a lot more attention should be being paid to the religions and their multiple (hydra-headed) attempts to assert their power in the public sphere. I have mentioned before, and it’s worth considering again, the number of organisations that the Roman Catholic Church has in North America alone — let alone the rest of the world — that are devoted to the church’s so-called pro-life interests. And when you consider that this church has diplomatic representatives around the world, so that it is protected from government critique, and has such an immediate influence on national governments, it is clear that the power it wields is tremendous, and not a little daunting.
Pingback: A conservative analysis of The Powers That Be « power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci
Being a Catholic, I can tell you that most of you are way off. This is not stating that I agree with all that Catholics do just as I certainly do not agree with all that the government does. I do not agree with all that white people, black people, Muslims, Japanese, Jews, Baptists, Orthodox etc. Every group has individuals that set a bad example. What ever group each and everyone of you belong to has a criminal, a murderer, a liar, manipulator and so on. No group is excluded from this. One of the biggest problems in this country is that many of you seem live in denial of that while pointing the finger at other groups. Look around, you are not excluded. You all are probably the first to scream stereotyping is so wrong…. Then why are most of you stereotyping Catholics. I am not evil. I am one of the most level headed, empathetic and supportive individuals you would ever have the pleasure of meeting. I would not want to know such judgmental people as most of you are. Forgot, judging is only what Catholics do? I do not think so. You all have proved that here on this site. Have a great night. Take care.
Tina Marie. Thanks for commenting. However, you seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Nowhere have I suggested that only Catholics judge. Nowhere have I suggested that only Catholics are evil. Many Catholics are, I am sure, just as you say, reasonable, level-headed, empathetic and supportive people. In fact, I know that many of them are. But of course that is not the point of this post. It does not stereotype Catholics. It takes some examples of what Catholics have done and are doing to abridge people’s freedom — or at least to try to. You may be a very good person, but the Catholic Church as such is making strenuous attempts to limit people’s freedom, to stereotype others in unacceptable ways, restricting their freedoms and endeavouring to impose its dictates, by law, on other people. Catholics are free to believe what they like, but when the bishops, and organisations like Bill Donohue’s Catholic League, attempt to impose Catholic moral law on everyone, then others have a right to oppose Catholic intrusion into public life. I oppose this official catholicism every chance I get, and will go on doing so, because I think it is a clear and present danger to liberty.