Let’s have another thread on the Catholics

After seeing Monday’s thread on Catholic leaders vs. Obama regarding birth control blow up, I’m figuring what the hell, let’s have another thread on that. (Yes, it mainly blew up because of one very persistent Catholic commenter. Whatever.) So: Dan did a great blog post on this titled “Religious Privilege and Grievance-Based Catholic Identity Politics on Full Display”:

So, not only is faith a litmus test for a fit leader, and not only does Henneberger demand (from a shockingly bloated sense of privilege) that he give multitudes of religious identity markers that closely match her own, but the only kind of legitimate faith she will accept from the liberal Protestant President is one that puts the consciences of regressive Catholic bishops over the consciences and health care rights of their employees who perform non-religious tasks.

This also means, by the way, putting the consciences of the Church hierarchy not only over their employees who are godless (whose consciences are obviously irrelevant), but he must put their concerns even over that resounding 98% majority of Roman Catholic women who use contraception. This liberal Protestant President can’t be a true man of faith if he does not help a group of male leaders who refuse equal participation from women in their hierarchy to make it harder for their poorer women employees to prevent becoming pregnant against their own wishes. So, the litmus test of faith—for a politically and religiously liberal Protestant even—is whether he will support a policy imposed by a minority of religious men over a majority of their female employees (of mixed faiths and no faith) requiring them to have children against their wills.

And just in case that isn’t enough to piss off any Catholics reading this, I want to mention something else: I used to be puzzled by people who focused their religion-bashing energies on the Catholic Church. It may not have been a great organization, but surely not as bad as the protestant fundamentalists, right? But now, post child-rape-coverup scandal, I’m totally on board with the folks who have a special place in their hearts for hating the Catholic Church. I’m seconding Greta Christina’s question to all y’all Catholics out there: Why Are You Still Catholic?

Seriously. If you’re a Catholic, even if you don’t agree with me on a single other things regarding religion, it shouldn’t be hard to see why you should be running in the other direction from the Catholic Church. If you must be religious, go find a nice Episcopalian church or something. Like now. This isn’t something you should have to think hard about before doing. To quote Greta:

I mean — how bad does it have to get? Let’s say I was making up a story about grotesque, nauseating, inexcusable- on- the- face- of- it evil; evil that would make all non-sociopathic people turn away in revolted horror at the very mention of it. And let’s say that, to illustrate that evil, I made up an example of a powerful, global institution that concealed and protected child rapists, shuttled them from town to town, failed to inform law enforcement officers and in many cases actually stonewalled them, deliberately dumped the child rapists in remote, impoverished villages… and then, when the horror finally came to light, responded with defensive entrenchment and equated the accusations with either anti-Semitic bigotry or petty gossip.

If I wrote that story, people would think it was over the top. “That’s ridiculous,” they’d say. “You have to make your evil more believable, more human. Nobody really does that.”

Well, people really do that.

The Church you belong to really does that.

Why on Earth are you still a part of it?

Slavery abolition and animal rights: the biggest problem
Catholics: why aren’t you Protestant?
Avoiding divorce doesn’t make you a traditionalist
How selfish are voters?
  • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

    And NOW such Catholics who disobey the Church en masse on contraception want to fight for the Church’s right to coerce their compliance!

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Why is blocking access to birth control more important to the Church than providing necessary health care or insurance to people who can’t afford it themselves? If a Catholic was asked to, say, give out condoms along with food and medicine to people who were clearly suffering from lack of same, why would he do anything other than help feed the hungry and leave the doctrinal arguments for later? There’s lots of stuff in the Bible about sacrificing of oneself to help the needy, but how much is there saying a woman shouldn’t be allowed to choose whether she gets pregnant or not?

    I don’t have to be a secularist to see that the religious right’s values are pathologically screwed up, ass-backwards, upside-down, and totally devoid of even the basic decency I learned in grade-school.

  • RW Ahrens

    28 States already require what the Obama Administration has recently decided to require nationally, and all Catholic Institutions in those States comply fully with those regulations. As a matter of fact, in five of the States that do NOT so require, many Catholic Institutions already provide that coverage.

    I haven’t heard of any particular whining on the part of the RCC as to any violations of conscience in any of those States.

    So this isn’t any kind of a violation of conscience, but an opportunistic use of this event to force a national brouhaha that they imagine will hurt Obama.

  • Rike

    It must be that a woman being allowed to choose not to have a child means she is limiting the choice of any priest looking for a child for his own purposes…

  • savoy47

    The Government has no business enforcing church law. 98% of Catholics use contracept­ion against the church’s teaching so if the church can force people to pay for it out of pocket then more people will be in line with the church rules because they can’t afford the insurance.

    Notice that the church is not saying that they have to pay for insurance their members will never use. It’s because they don’t allow their members to use it. Again, The Government has no business enforcing church law.