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?

Peter van Inwagen's argument for Christianity
American "separation of powers" means we don't know who to blame when things go wrong
Still don't think I can vote for Obama, but this has me rooting for him
Catholics: why aren't you Protestant?

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X