Do We Need a Crusade Against the iPod?
I watched with interest the BBC live broadcast of the appearance of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I am not that interested in his theological views, except in so far as they have a public impact. (From what I can tell, I am not in agreement with him on a number of such matters, from the alleged “evil” of homosexuality and marriage among gay people to his arguably rather cavalier attitude toward the abuse of minors.) But I was quite disgusted by the reaction of some of British tabloid press, which played up his membership as a youth in the Hitler Jugend. Since that was a compulsory organization and since he deserted during the war, the charge seems to me an especially low and malicious one.
On the other hand, some of his defenders seem, well, over the top, at least. Waaayy over the top.
Daniel P. Moloney, a lecturer in politics at Princeton University, argues in National Review Onlinethat the Pope’s experience living under National Socialist totalitarianism showed him the dangers of moral relativism (not so sure about that, but maybe) and then offers us this absurd and outrageous example of the inability to make relevant moral distinctions, which is surely a sign of creeping moral relativism itself:
In this regard, the consumerism and relativism of the West can be just as dangerous as the totalitarianism of the East: It’s just as easy to forget about God while dancing to an iPod as while marching in a Hitler Youth rally. There’s a difference, to be sure, but hardly anyone would contest the observation that in elite Western society, as in totalitarian Germany, the moral vocabulary has been purged of the idea of sin. And if there’s no sense of sin, then there’s no need for a Redeemer, or for the Church.
“There’s a difference, to be sure, butÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦.” That has got to be the silliest and most absurd thing I’ve read in months. And lately I’ve read a lot of silly and absurd material, including radical Islamist thought and some of the postmodern zanies.
Moloney’s comparison of forgetting about God “while dancing to an iPod” to “marching in a Hitler Youth rally” is about as useful a comparison as Andrea Dworkin’s comparison of making love to rape (sometimes people forget about God when doing those things, too) or the equation of post-coital regret to rape by campus women’s centers. Such an inability to make distinctions is surely a cause for concern. Andrea Dworkin, meet Daniel P. Moloney.
P.S. Writing this on an Arabic keyboard, as my laptop seems to have gotten some kind of a bug in it and I can’t get it to boot up properly, has proven rather taxing. I will probably not do a lot of blogging from here.
P.P.S. The New York Times has an interesting article in the April 23 edition on Cardinal Ratzinger and the evolution of his attitude toward and treatment of priestly abuse of minors. It is much kinder to him than my somewhat soft rebuke above (referring to “his arguably rather cavalier attitude toward the abuse of minors”); I just wonder how it could not have occurred to people that when such complaints were being made, they merited a clear response that focused on the legal responsibility of the abusers and the harm to the abused, rather than merely the spiritual state of the abusers.
FYI, Dworkin died a couple of weeks ago. Thanks to her brilliant scholarship, we learned that 9 million women were killed during the medieval period by evil Catholic men.
The sexual abuse cases are being sold as pedophilia, but a statistical study showed that 81% of the cases involved sexual contact between clergy and sexually mature adolescent males. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and a ban on homosexuals in the priesthood would be cheaper financially for the Catholic Church. It might restore faith in the clergy and enable more straight men to enter the priesthood in good conscience. I’ve a number of contacts who left religious orders because of the overpowering presence of a gay subculture within the community. This aspect is understandably ignored by homosexuals and western media. Fr. Andrew Greeley, a liberal priest and columnist, has suggested that most priests are gay. A trained sociologist, his comments were based on very informal data collection, but it certainly suggests that there’s more to the scandals than kiddie molestors preying on altar boys. Some of the more notorious homosexual lairs passing for seminaries have earned nicknames like Notre Flame, F****t Factory and the Pink Palace. The priesthood is viewed by young homosexuals as a place of sexual license. Play your cards right and you can earn the protection of a bishop like Weakland of Wisconsin.
Michael Novak has an op-ed in the New York Times (4/20/05) that argues that Ratzinger is more oriented towards liberty than was John Paul II. I am not convinced, but don’t yet know what to think of Ratzinger. Nearly all the commentary on what Ratzinger believes seems like ungrounded opinion to me.
CitizenStraight: all of life is “intrinsically disordered,” to the same extent homosexuality is.
I cannot understand why gays would have any interest in being in a church that regards them as evil. Banning gays from the priesthood would make sense for the church; but the church ought to owe up to its criminal responsibility for covering up and helping to perpetuate the rape of minors.
I’ve a number of contacts who left religious organisations because of the overpowering presence of a reactionary subculture within the community. This aspect is understandably ignored by people like you, CitizenStraight.
You do not happen to be a member of such a palaeolithic subculture?
I agree with Tom’s assessment of Daniel P. Moloney’s unfortunate comparison but the reference to Pope Benedict XVI “arguably rather cavalier attitude toward the abuse of minors” seems to me to be unfair.
“I cannot understand why gays would have any interest in being in a church that regards them as evil.”
I believe this statement is incorrect. It is the homosexual inclination (not homosexuals in themselves) which the Church regards as evil. Homosexuals are to be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”.
In case of doubt regarding the Church’s position, I recommend consultation of paragraphs 2357-2359 of the Cathechism and also the 1986 “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual” by Cardinal Ratzinger.
On iPods there is no official Church position as far as I’m aware, so I believe a crusade might be uncalled for at this time.
AAA’s points are well taken. The New York Times (see post postscript on the post above) has an article today on how the pope’s views have evolved. It seemed overly charitable, since I wonder how he could have brushed the issue aside as he did at the start. I also fear that rather than addressing the issue of abuse of minors by paedophile priests, the Pope is willing to use the scandal as an occasion to bash adult gay people who aren’t in the church, don’t abuse children, and don’t bear any responsibility for sweeping the issue under the rug, as I fear the Pope does, even if his views later changed. (The issue came to general public light recently, but surely there was knowledge of this in the church for many years; after all, dioceses were shuttling abusive priests about, so someone knew.)
AAA: Your point regarding whether or not the church regards homosexuals as evil is well taken and I stand corrected; at least as official doctrine, the church makes a distinction between the sin and the sinner, and often in practice as well, I suppose.
What I perhaps should have asked was why people who have a gay lifestyle or who are trying to accept themselves as homosexuals would be interested in joining the church. Certainly there’s no dispute that church doctrine is anti-homosexuality.
TGP: The New York Times (see post postscript on the post above) has an article today on how the pope’s views have evolved. It seemed overly charitable, since I wonder how he could have brushed the issue aside as he did at the start.
——-
Without any specific knowledge (or particular interest in) the case of Cardinal Ratzinger, I just wanted to mention that the circumstance of brushing aside or ignoring extremely upsetting information (if true) about an organization that makes up much of one’s life is not an unusual psychological phenomenon. Too much is invested, psychologically, to easily believe such information. Much easier to ignore, or later spin, it, until the evidence becomes too massive to avoid.
“What I perhaps should have asked was why people who have a gay lifestyle or who are trying to accept themselves as homosexuals would be interested in joining the church. Certainly there’s no dispute that church doctrine is anti-homosexuality.”
Charles: I think that’s matter of faith and I don’t see any reason why homosexuals shouldn’t be catholics just like anybody else. Of course, for non-catholic homosexuals no such “problems” arise. But it’s worth noting that the Church’s teachings place quite a burden on all catholics, regardless of their sexual orientation.
While (for catholics) sin (understood as a lack of conformity with order or due measure) should not be trivialized, it is necessary to always keep in mind that only God is perfectly good. Human beings (again, in the catholic perspective), are essentially limited beings, capable of good but also constantly prone to sin. Hence, the importance of free will.
Two optimistic articles on the implications of Pope Benedict XVI for classical liberalism:
Benedict XVI and Freedom, by Alejandro A. Chafuen: http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=262
True Liberalism, by Rev. Robert A. Sirico: http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=263
Having studied some of Cardinal’s Ratzinger writings on philosophy and theology, he seems to me to be extremely intelligent and very well read. While the Church is a vey complex institution and the qualities required to be a great Pope are much broader, I share the optimism expressed in the two articles mentioned above.
I’m a Roman Catholic and I’ve known only one Pope in my life: John Paul II. He’ll probably be my Pope for the rest of my life. However, I’m quite satisfied for the election of Razinger as Pope Benedict XVI. There was a real danger out there for classical liberals and it was Cardinal RodrÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?Âguez Maradiaga from Honduras, probably one of the strongest candidates given his youth, charisma and knowledge of 7 languages.
RodrÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?Âguez Maradiaga is known for his opposition to globalisation and free trade (including CAFTA).
Pope Benedict doesn’t seem to share this animosity towards free markets. Habemus Papam, and it is good.
“There was a real danger out there for classical liberals and it was Cardinal RodrÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?Âguez Maradiaga from Honduras, probably one of the strongest candidates given his youth, charisma and knowledge of 7 languages.”
I share Juan’s concern but I would argue that from a classical liberal perspective, there were several other choices that would also have been quite problematic, to say the least.
“Pope Benedict doesn’t seem to share this animosity towards free markets.”
As Cardinal, he mostly did not. Let’s hope, for the sake of the Church and of mankind in general, that as Pope he will have similar positions on globalization and free markets.
AAA: Thanks for your comments, which I find informative.
I find the “love the sinner hate the sin” doctrine problematic for two reasons. First, while the catholic church (and many protestant ones) hold the doctrine as a principle, in practice they promulgate oppression of homosexuals, both by encouraging private discrimination and by attempting to impose government-enforced oppression & discrimination. The former (private) often leads to violence, and the latter (state-enforcement) clearly utilizes violence; claims of love towards the victims seem hollow.
Second, it’s hard for me to see how one can really love a person while hating some of the most fundamental aspects of that person. For example, I am an advocate of reason as our only means of knowledge, and radical individualism. If someone were to tell me “we hate your rationalism & libertarianism but love you,” my reaction would be that these things are so much a part of who I am, that the profession of loving me is meaningless. Similarly, I would suppose that if a person were told that something so fundamental as their sexuality was hated, but not them, they’d find this unacceptable and see no place for themselves in the church.
I’ll confess to being inconsistent on this second point, since I am very much opposed to all revealed religions, yet often find myself favorably disposed to religious people, such as yourself.
One further observation — there’s a worthwhile documentary film, “Trembling before G_d,” dealing with gay & lesbian orthdox & hassidic jews — people who try to remain true both to their religious faith and to themselves. The people interviewed have very interesting & compelling stories, but in the end, the only one makes any sense is the sole interviewee who ultimately gave up and rejected judaism, saying that real god doesn’t condemn people for their sexuality.
Charles: You make some interesting points.
Just some quick comments:
“in practice they promulgate oppression of homosexuals, both by encouraging private discrimination and by attempting to impose government-enforced oppression & discrimination.”
As for government-enforced discrimination, I totally agree with you. As for private discrimination, in a free society people must have the freedom to choose with whom they want to relate, however silly their criteria of choice. That said, if any catholics engage in violent acts on account of the reasons you suggest they are in grave error, not only in general but also specifically regarding the case of homossexuals.
If a catholic takes seriously the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, he is equally obliged to treat homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
As a classical liberal, I see this as a reciprocal situation: a non-catholic may believe that the Church’s doctrine regarding homosexuality (or anything else) is deeply flawed and still be in good terms with catholics.
“Second, it’s hard for me to see how one can really love a person while hating some of the most fundamental aspects of that person.”
Well, most of my local friends are leftists and I get along quite well with them. I don’t feel I have to judge everyone around me to see if they adhere 100% to my standards on everything.
“For example, I am an advocate of reason as our only means of knowledge”
I’m a rather strict hayekian with occasional oakeshottian inclinations so that sort of rationalism kind of scares me, but I still think you’re probably a nice guy. See? 🙂
“I’ll confess to being inconsistent on this second point, since I am very much opposed to all revealed religions, yet often find myself favorably disposed to religious people, such as yourself.”
Thanks. I also often find myself favorably disposed to non-religious people (in fact, I was one of them for quite some time).
AAA: we are largely in agreement, so I will make two quick points.
1. Private discrimination that does not involve coercion is indeed a matter for the discriminator to decide…part of his/her freedom of association. Even so, one may — at least in some cases — find it reprehensible.
2. I don’t think the link between rationalism & knowledge to which I refer are in contradiction to Hayek. All I mean is that reason (logic) and observation (empirical evidence) are our only tools for acquiring knowledge. I think even some catholic scholastics have come close to this position.