Religion (1): The Pope

Rob writes:

As reported by the Irish Times on 23 February, the head of the Catholic Church has been charged with crimes against humanity. In their more than sixteen thousand-word document (20-plus pages) submitted to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague, two Bavarian lawyers allege "three worldwide crimes which until now have not been denounced ... (as) the traditional reverence toward 'ecclesiastical authority' has clouded the sense of right and wrong."

And with that, reader, the objective part of this blog comes to an end. Now I beg you to dip into your personal Treasury of Merit and indulge me while I re-type a bit of the above. 

The traditional reverence toward 'ecclesiastical authority' has clouded the sense of right and wrong.

God damn, that felt good to write for its clarity and truth. Moving on to the three charges. The Pope is allegedly responsible for:

(1) "the preservation and leadership of a worldwide totalitarian regime of coercion which subjugates its members with terrifying and health-endangering threats."

(2) "the adherence to a fatal forbiddance of the use of condoms, even when the danger of HIV-AIDS infection exists."

(3) "the establishment and maintenance of a worldwide system of cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and their preferential treatment, which aids and abets ever new crimes."

My, but these lawyers have a way with words.

Of course, we should all anticipate the outrage of (some) Catholics, especially the suits and the hatted, who will play the hurt feelings card and rebuke those who dare criticize their faith, as though it's a morally defensible position to say that ideas and beliefs exist which are exempt from scrutiny. Hell, there may even be Mormons, Christians and Jews who come to the defense of the Catholic Church, lest this trend of applying rational criticism to religion continue unabated and touch their own belief systems.

I'm going to digress here, but I'll bring it back around. I promise.

One of the sad realities of life, one that drives me insane, is the fact that ordinarily moral, right-thinking people are so easily depraved by their religious beliefs. An easy example is circumcision. Who in their right mind would look at a perfectly healthy infant and dream up the idea of hacking away at its genitalia? It's a barbaric and painful practice, obviously done without the child's consent, callously performed because of tribal tradition, (American) social pressures and grossly overstated fears around "cleanliness." As further evidence of the breakdown of human moral fortitude in the face of majority opposition, I personally know several rational, intelligent individuals who renounce the practice of female circumcision, yet can't be bothered to come to the defense of mutilated baby boys. This double-standard is nothing short of batshit, and illustrates a larger point that I want to return to in the context of this Catholic fiasco.

Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, has said: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

In the case of circumcision, religion is a necessary prerequisite only in the sense that it was (arguably) religious nutjobs who thought up the practice in the first place. For the irreligious, however, fear is a perfectly serviceable stand-in for religious brain-washing. Fear of non-conformity, of not fitting in with the tribe. Fear of infection. (Course, while you're lopping off the end of your kid's dick, why not cut him open and take out his appendix, too? Or his tonsils? Why not put him in a fucking bubble? Or maybe you could just teach him to wash his johnny off from time to time.)

Circumcision is one of myriad examples of how religious inculcation translates over time into a fucked-up moral compass. Always with religious belief---especially in "revealed" truth---comes the danger that otherwise clear-thinking people will abandon the faculties of reason and compassion. In the case of holding down an infant under a sharp object, the break is brief. But in the case of the Pope, and many within the Catholic Church, the break appears to be somewhat more permanent. That it's even thinkable to a so-called civilized person in the twenty-first century to deprive Africans of condoms where AIDS rates are alarmingly high; that it seems conscionable to the leader of an organization which claims more than a billion members to offer asylum to known pedophiles within that organization should cause the words of Steven Weinberg to ring in all of our ears non-stop until those wrongs are righted. Well, "wrongs." I think I'd rather call them crimes, and thankfully, at least two brave Bavarians agree, and are doing something about it. Respect to Gert-Joachim Hetzel and Christian Sailer. You're doing the Lord's work, gents.

_____________

Sara writes:

Confession:  I was raised Catholic.   (While I’m at it: Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.  It has been 22 years since my last confession.)

Long story very short, when I began my independent study of the church and learned about its worse-than-checkered past, I left. 

I was overjoyed to see the article you forwarded, because a law suit may be the most logical way to confront a gigantic organization about its faults and crimes.

(Although the suit has been brought against the Pope, this is really a condemnation of Catholicism, with Pope Benedict as the figurehead.  Not incorrectly.  If “Pope, the Figurehead” gets the benefit of having the single direct line to God and being able to pass down His laws and decisions, it also serves that he’s the single focus of an indictment of Catholicism.)

One point the attorneys make to illustrate the coercion factor (charge 1) is that the church “acquires its members through a compulsory act, namely, through the baptism of infants that do not yet have a will of their own.”  This is good business sense — and the church is nothing if not a successful business, purported to be the largest landowner in the world.  Of course it’s completely unethical.

This manner of growing an organization is hardly unique to the Catholics, though.  Many religions gain the majority of their new members by enthusiastic procreation.  One could argue that most social organizations follow lines of inheritance. 

The difference here is that, rather than simply allowing for passive “I do what I do because it’s what I’ve always done” recruitment, the church threatens to send members’ children to the bowels of hell if they’re not baptized.

I’ve witnessed firsthand the near-panic that a devout Catholic can feel after her baby is born, before the parents can corral the entire family for a baptism.   Those perilous few weeks are a gaping window into an eternity of damnation for this innocent little soul.  If it weren’t so heart-wrenching to witness what these parents honestly feel, it would be silly.  As it stands, it’s just infuriating. 

Point three (charge 3) is also intrinsically linked to The Business Of The Church, and is no less evil for it.  Nothing justifies the quiet shuffling of priests that resulted in the boys of multiple parishes suffering the abuses of the same broken pedophiles.  There’s nothing new to be said about how awful this is.

Charge 2, however — the continuation of the anti-contraceptive protocol — is simply one more instance of the church being mired in the tar pits of its own policy.  

Anyone with an objective brain can see that forbidding condoms to Catholics in danger of contracting AIDS is a death sentence.  That's unconscionable and illogical.  Stupid on all counts.

Now, it’s my understanding that as much as the holy teachings would have it otherwise, the Catholic church is primarily a giant political machine.  Like most political machines, this one can be influenced by its constituents.  If it becomes obvious that the members of the church think and act as a great majority in a direction contrary to that of church teachings, God will eventually tell the pope that He agrees. 

It just might take 300 years for Him to get around to it.

Now, there are good people in the organization.  There are good priests in the organization.  That doesn’t mean, though, that the organization shouldn’t be taken to task for the ridiculous stances it takes.  

Well, you know what?  Keep your ridiculous stances.  It’s just the ones that are actively hurting humanity that have to be addressed.  So I’ll add my thanks to yours, Rob.  Job well done, Bavarians.  (I need to learn their names; I keep picturing these august attorneys in twee little Robin Hood caps and woolen knickers.)  

To Gert-Joachim Hetzel and Christian Sailer:  Thank you for fighting the good fight, from one who instead decided to dismiss the whole organization and look the other way.  Yours is by far the more noble and effective tactic.