Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Should Religion be Ethical?
Randy Cohen of the NY Times has a very insightful and novel take on the Pope and the Anglican Communion, perhaps one that only an outsider can make. He points out that if two major corporations like Microsoft and Exxon came to a similar agreement at the expense of women executives and gay employees, there would be a huge public outcry over the bigotry of the decision. He uses this as the pretext to ask a bigger question; should religions and religious institutions be held ethically accountable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If one adheres to what can be called a progressive sexual ethic, then, from that perspective, those holding a traditional sexual ethic are indeed bigots. But if that perspective is not universally or near-universally held, it's simply an exercise in question-begging to wonder why those with whom one differs in ethics are not called to account for not observing an ethic they don't hold.
Ought one personally to "hold them to account"? This author obviously thinks so. If he chooses to denounce what he sees as bigotry, not to associate with those he considers bigots, not to befriend them, not to do business with them, not to bowl or play basketball with them, not to worship with them, not to work with them on matters touching the common good, he is free to follow where his conscience leads him. And there are of course people on the traditional side who undoubtedly feel the same way and might act in those ways in regard to him.
But most of us, in this society at least, so far as I can tell, still adhere to a social ethic of tolerance, whether we are progressive or traditional or somewhere in between. Perhaps unethically, we put up with "bigots" and "libertines" for the sake of social peace. And our fundamental law goes a long way toward protecting the sanctity of our opinions, whichever side they fall on.
So, I am not too terribly shocked that the Catholic Church (my own) continues to adhere to the ancient form of the priesthood, or continues to uphold a sexual ethic that is as difficult to adhere to, for anyone, as the command to love one's enemies, or that it invites those who share those peculiar convictions to join it. Those who wished to make spirited denunciations are free to do so, and many have. But since it's rather old news that the Catholic Church continues to profess the tenets of Catholicism, I'm not surprised that the editorial writers, on the whole, haven't embarked on a crusade based on these recent, rather narrowly-focused developments.
I'm afraid I don't quite see things that way, nor do I get any sense that Mr. Cohen urged shunning those with whom he disagrees, even in ethical matters.
We are back to that square one of the current radical disjunct between the community of a church and the larger community of the world in which it must make its way (and which God commanded it to love and serve). The problem with many of the teachings of conservative churches, especially in regard to women and gays, is that so many people find them morally offensive, in a way similar to some Muslim teachings about women and their place in society that offend most Westerners. Should a society that has made discrimination illegal on the basis of gender and sexual orientation with laws that bind businesses and institutions give churches a pass on these issues? Should we hypothetically give a church a pass on racial discrimination?
There is indeed that necessary social tolerance which requires us to allow for our neighbors what we would never allow for ourselves, but where should the larger society draw the line? Making allowances for Sikhs to wear their beards and turbans is one thing, but allowing for things like polygamy is a whole other matter. This is an especially delicate matter in a cosmopolitan world where a variety of One True Faiths must make room for each other for the sake of the survival of each.
And what does it say for the Christian message if churches are looking for exemptions to discrimination laws in hiring non-clerical staff? What does it say for the universality claimed by the Christian faith if clerical service is seen as arbitrarily denied on the basis of inherent characteristics (like gender and sexual orientation) that have nothing to do with qualifications?
What kind of moral authority should the churches expect to have in the larger non-Christian world if their practices are perceived to be in glaring contradiction to what they proclaim? After all, that liberal inclusiveness which conservatives delight in belittling is firmly rooted in the universalism of both Judaism and Christianity, finding perhaps its most ancient expression in the Book of Isaiah.
Thank you for this article. I have spent this year discerning wheather or not to be ordained in the United Methoidist Church. In the end I decided not, largely for reasons that Cohen articulates. I had to finally ask myself, "Would I even consider joining an orginization that has the same anti-gay stance as the UMC?" My answer was no. If I would normally avoid such an orginization on moral grounds, I couldn't see myself making an exception for the chruch.
"...nor do I get any sense that Mr. Cohen urged shunning those with whom he disagrees, even in ethical matters."
I doubt he would do that sort of shunning either. But what does he mean to "be held ethically accountable"? I don't think he wants to invoke the law. But he is rather unclear, I think, about what the response should be.
"Should a society that has made discrimination illegal on the basis of gender and sexual orientation with laws that bind businesses and institutions give churches a pass on these issues?"
I think it must, if it is committed to religious freedom, per our standard first amendment jurisprudence. I am certainly conservative and "civil libertarian" enough to be terrified at any attempt to repeal or modify the first amendment.
"Should we hypothetically give a church a pass on racial discrimination?"
It's not hypothetical. The Mormons for years banned African Americans from their priesthood. I don't think anyone questioned their right to do so.
"where should the larger society draw the line?"
That is indeed the $64,000.00 question.
"allowing for things like polygamy is a whole other matter."
I agree, but I suspect it's coming. It exists in some areas already, and though most disapprove (I do), few want to send polygamists to jail (I don't).
"What does it say for the universality claimed by the Christian faith if clerical service is seen as arbitrarily denied on the basis of inherent characteristics (like gender and sexual orientation) that have nothing to do with qualifications?"
Only that the priesthood is indeed arbitrary, that the essence of being a Christian has nothing to do with being a cleric. After all, Jesus was ineligible for the priesthood of his own day--he was of the wrong tribe--but that didn't much concern him.
"What kind of moral authority should the churches expect to have in the larger non-Christian world if their practices are perceived to be in glaring contradiction to what they proclaim?"
It depends on the standard by which the non-Christian world judges. Normally the Church whould have no moral authority for non-Christians anyway, yes? But for Christians, and perhaps for some non-Christians, one would think that its authority would turn much on its perceived ability to persevere in its own message and not modify it to conform to the world.
"that liberal inclusiveness which conservatives delight in belittling is firmly rooted in the universalism of both Judaism and Christianity, finding perhaps its most ancient expression in the Book of Isaiah."
I hope I don't belittle the welcome of the faith, but it seems to me that that universal welcome is a welcome to repentence and to grow in the faith. Isaiah may have looked to the whole world coming to the Temple, but not to worship Ishtar.
Sorry for running on and on. Don't mean to be contentious. But I think your questions deserve answers. Don't know if they're right, but they're mine.
Rick,
I don't mind you being contentious at all as long as you don't mind that I'm not persuaded.
I don't recall hearing Our Lord bid anyone to repent when He said "Father forgive them..." from the Cross.
"Just as I am without one plea..." begins the old hymn.
"Come, buy without money..." said Isaiah.
I don't belittle repentance here, but I do insist that The Good News be heard and understood as Good News, and that Good News to my ear is that Salvation is accomplished on our behalf, and God is in solidarity with us in all our joys and sorrows in this life, and even in our sin and wickedness.
"...as long as you don't mind that I'm not persuaded."
But of course. If I can get, "I see where you're coming from, but I still think you're absolutely nuts," that's usually the best I can expect.
I enjoyed the pieces on Wojnarowicz, by the way. Not my "cup of tea," obviously, but it's always good to expand our boundaries a little.
Only that the priesthood is indeed arbitrary
It may seem that way, to an RC w/ a Y chromosome. ("Whatchagonnado? Just the way it is")
Probably not to one w/ two XXs.
After all, Jesus was ineligible for the priesthood of his own day--he was of the wrong tribe--but that didn't much concern him.
That's actually a good reminder, Rick. The failed priesthood of the predecessor, should not concern the succeeding priesthood of the successor!
The invitation, as always, is for RCs to find "the Fullness of Truth" {*} (my fave EWTN term!) in Catholicism "Semper Reformanda". In TEC.
{*} OK, that's BS rhetoric. I don't believe that TEC has "the Fullness of Truth". No we're always---praise the Holy Spirit!--- being filled further. :-)
Post a Comment