What an awful thing that so many people still look with
rose-colored glasses upon the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. They should be seen for what they are,
a pernicious gang of smug old men on a power trip, jumping in at every turn to
control through fear and to manipulate human weakness. The men and women Vatican II
defined fifty years ago as “the people of God” deserve a whole lot better. This actual Catholic church is made up
of a complex collection of folk who adhere to the organization for a broad
range of reasons – because they were born into it, because mama would cry if
they left it, because it is an island in a sea of uncertainty, because it
inspires them to be all that they can be, because it channels their spiritual
longing better than any other human organization does. But the authoritarian power structure
of this very sick institution is something else again. My heart goes out to these good
catholics. How they must squirm
each time one of the self-appointed and increasingly authoritarian leaders
claims to speak in their name.
Many who are not Catholic come to know Catholics through
their work in schools and hospitals.
If our contact with catholicism were with the likes of Sister Helen
Prejean, whose life story was portrayed by Susan Sarandon in the 1995 film Dead
Man Walking, we’d all be Catholics. Sister Prejean took up the task of
becoming the religious counselor to a brutal murderer on death row when no one
else would and fought with all her might to save one man’s soul. Whether you buy into her faith or not,
her selflessness was inspired, and one might actually think a church that could
do this for a human soul might be the place to be, if such inspiration as hers
were not so overshadowed and mocked by what the institution has come to be
known for in recent years.
Consider how the official hierarchy looks at liberation
theology, for example. Liberation
theology grew out of an environment where the church hierarchy routinely sides
with dictators and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary people. The movement, rooted in Latin
American poverty, has been fought tooth and nail by the pope and the hierarchy
because caring for the poor gets in the way of a hard-nosed focus on
doctrine. You can be excommunicated
for trying to get the church too close to Jesus.
Another example, and the reason the word “pernicious” comes
so quickly to mind, is the current battle over the definition of family. For many years, Catholic Charities in
Boston was a leading force for good, especially in helping to place kids in
need of adoption. Over the seventeen years they were involved, going way back before Massachusetts recognized same-sex
marriage, they placed thirteen kids with gay and lesbian families. In doing their job
they followed the guidelines of the State of Massachusetts that there should be
no discrimination on the basis of sexuality or any other human category that
did not threaten the well-being of children. In fact, the policy was quite explicit. Top priority would always be the
interest of the children. Church
and state together recognized that there were children with special problems
not getting adopted, found there were gay people were willing to take them in,
and they followed their hearts – and their minds – to a superb solution. Winners all around. Not a loser in sight.
Until the Vatican caught wind of what they were doing in
Boston. Suddenly, in 2005,
according to the chairman of the board of Catholic Charities, “the Vatican
ordered our diocese to cease using the single criteria of 'best interest of the
children.'" They had a larger
goal – to keep up the demonization of gays and lesbians – even if it involved
throwing the kids to the wolves.
All 42 directors of Catholic Charities wanted to continue helping as
many kids find families as possible. But they were no match for the pope’s man, Cardinal
Sean O’Malley. Shut down this
operation, said the Cardinal. And
shut it down they did. Vow of
obedience, you see.
You will recognize the mentality. It was the same one at work with the child abuse cases. We’ve got more important things to do
than worry about a few kids. If
the priest abuses a kid, we can shut the kid up and move the priest to another
parish where we can keep an eye on him (or not). Just don’t allow a scandal to get in the way of the flow of
donations in the collection plate.
With adoptions, if a few troubled kids have to stay in an orphanage
until they are eighteen, it’s a price we can afford to pay rather than to look
like we’re not serious about our condemnation of homosexuality. Besides, although they might find a
home to call their own, these kids will end up doubting the need to condemn any
and all forms of non-reproductive sex.
Can’t have that.
This all happened seven years ago. I might be tempted to say it’s water under the bridge. We’ve moved on. Gays are adopting kids right and left
these days. There’s no need to
wake that sleeping dog. But
perniciousness is once again rising like scum to the top of the hierarchy’s
meddling in civic affairs.
When the church bowed out in Boston and elsewhere, others
stepped up and the adoptions continued.
In the end, no kids were hurt, although I can’t be sure there weren’t
delays. By the pope’s action, the
church merely disqualified itself as an agent of compassion. The rest of the world worked around
them, keeping their eye on the kids.
So far, 65,000 kids have been adopted by gay and lesbian parents, four percent of all adopted kids in the United States.
But that’s not how the church is telling the story these
days. Ask the hierarchy and you’ll
find a gnashing of teeth and a rending of garments over how religion was given
short shrift, how the state made demands on religion they had no right to
make. Never mind the 42 presumably
Catholic folks on the Catholic Charities board who were happy to go along with
the state’s insistence that citing
gay parents’ sexuality as a reason for disqualifying them as parents was
illegal. The religious beliefs of
the “actual church – the people of God,”
the same folk as the 90% who practice birth control, had to give way,
and the views of the hierarchy held sway.
Pernicious.
You can see the “church as victim” playing out these days in
Washington State. On the ballot in
the upcoming election on November 6 is Referendum 74, which would extend to
lgbt people the right to marry.
The majority of American Catholics are in favor of this extension of
human rights. Not so Yakima’s
Bishop Joseph Tyson. In a letter
to his flock he states:
As a
law, R-74 … conditions our society to forget or ignore basic realities of human
existence, and, rather than foster human rights, it is actually offensive to
basic human rights and equality. This is the tragic irony: a law touted as a
victory for civil rights and equality is actually a loss of civil rights and
equality for the most vulnerable among us, children.
I understand, Bishop, you don’t want gays to marry. It’s tied in with not wanting women to
practice birth control. With
teaching boys not to “touch themselves down there.”
But “a loss of civil rights”? Now that is some sweet double-talk.
Loss of equality for the most vulnerable among us? The children?
Joseph.
Joseph! Do you hear
what you’re saying?
photo credit:
No comments:
Post a Comment