Andrew Teal, Chaplain of Pembroke College at Oxford University, gave a sermon this week entitled "An Overdue Apology," spurred by the administration's decision to ignore a nearly−unanimous Junior Common Room decision to fly a rainbow flag in support of LGBTQ history month. Dr. Teal, who supports the motion, wanted to apologize for the complicity of the Anglican Church in the oppression of minorities and women. Though his church would not fight against birth control, it has a history of collusion and marginalization. Near Pembroke lies a plaque memorializing the 16th century "Oxford Martyrs," who were burned alive for the crime of being Catholic. Dr. Teal agreed that any defense of the Church must begin with a sincere, heartfelt apology.
I will not enumerate the crimes of the Catholic Church — to do so would be an ad nausea theological and historical exegesis — but rather, I will respond to Mr. Lesinski's specious defense of the Church in the Daily (Mar. 1) and to his comment about my "troubling" audacity to criticize it.
I want to make explicit from the start that I have no animosity for anyone who has chosen to find comfort or community in the form of religion. To deny these beneficences would be as cruel and contrary to the democratic process on which our country was founded as the actions of the Church itself. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion — which we must vigilantly protect. But it also protects citizens from religion, which is what the Catholic Church — and non−Catholics who have opportunistically taken up the charge — jeopardizes in characterizing women's reproductive health as an assault on religious freedom.
Mr. Lesinski's accusation that my article is ineffective in advancing the argument for universal birth control coverage misses the point. That argument has been made and won. The vast majority of Americans believe women ought to have free access to birth control without interference from religious groups to which they may not even belong.
While women's health should not be a political issue, it has become one. My response to Lesinski's claim that my challenge does not amount to political discourse rests on two premises: 1) by writing an opinion piece on a political issue, I am exo ipso engaging in political discourse; and 2) it is only because my criticism is directed at the Catholic Church rather than at Republican Members of Congress or presidential candidates that Mr. Lesinski describes it as "petty" and intolerant.
For an illogical reason, religion is given a free pass out of logical discourse. We argue against political opinions but not against religious beliefs. Why? Religion is based on faith, which claims to be immune to logic, reasoning and debate. But when its practices are imposed on people outside of its membership, criticism should not be off−limits. In criticizing the Catholic Church, I am seeking to engage religion in the same way we engage politics. I would like to see religious practices included in legitimate discourse, and while such dialogues are rare, they are not unprecedented. Why is someone who criticizes religion labeled as "incendiary" and "hateful," when someone who criticizes another's political opinions is just of the other wing? To remove religion from acceptable discourse is a disservice.
Lesinski does not report his sources on the rise of secularism, so we do not know where he went wrong. But any scholar of history or philosophy could tell you that it originated long before the last 50 years, which Lesinski quotes. For as long as there has been theism, there has been atheism. Ancient Greek rationalists pre−date Christ by centuries, and the 15th Century printing press catalyzed the Enlightenment of the mid−17th Century.
But this is beside the point. My article sought to expose the hypocritical and archaic practices of Catholic bishops, whose sexism has endured since the first Vicar of Christ took his throne. The bishops refuse to acknowledge that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women regularly use contraception. They do not want women to control their own bodies, and they refuse to accept the emancipation of women from the shackles of patriarchy. By mischaracterizing the birth control issue as an assault on religious freedom, they are complicit in the continued oppression of 50 percent of the population.
Lesinski maintains that criticizing the Catholic Church is "troubling" simply because the Church has been around for 2,000 years. Really? Slavery has existed for far longer than 2,000 years, and we rightly condemn that practice. Women could not vote in the U.S. for hundreds of years, and we condemn that, too. Are we wrong to denounce those practices simply because they existed for a long time?
The sort of relativism in Lesinski's argument amounts to nihilism. The Catholic Church burned alive the Oxford Martyrs in 1555 and 1556; we are right to condemn the Church's actions today, more than 450 years later. Lesinski claims that young people cannot be qualified to be critical of a practice that has existed for a "long" time. Can we only debate events of our own lifetime? And he chides me for not engaging in legitimate discourse.
In any event, the Catholic Church has not been consistent in its practices. Its doctrinal changes have been clear cases of expediency rather than divine inspiration. The "virtue" of chastity — in some forms, but, tragically, not in others — is a recent practice in the history of the Church. In fact, it was not until the Second Lateran Council of 1139 that the Church decided clergy must remain chaste, and the practice did not become universal until around 1400. But the Church's rationale for this change is even more interesting. The Vatican worried that its great land holdings would be diminished if priests had family members to give land to. The concept of purgatory did not become Church doctrine until the Council of Trent in the mid−1500s. The reason for its adoption was to frighten followers into conformity and submission and to fill Church coffers through the sale of indulgences. And it was not until 1964, when political pressure made it necessary to do so, that the Church pardoned Jews of deicide for killing Jesus. These examples show that doctrines of the Church, while long lasting, ought not be taken at face value or be immune from attack. The fact that the Catholic Church has been around for approximately 2,000 years should not itself create immunity from criticism. Nor is it right that the Church cannot be encouraged to change, since it has done so, however slowly, since its beginning. But, alas, the Catholic Church cannot err.
After years of denial, the Church has begun to condemn its institutionalized rape of children. (Though it still rewards those like the villainous former Archbishop of Boston Bernard Francis Law, who was appointed to the Roman Curia and made archpriest emeritus of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, after covering up major cases of abuse.) It's time for the Church to step back from its paternalistic power plays and acknowledge that women have the right to be free from the interference in the legitimate exercise of autonomy over their bodies.
The Catholic Church must apologize to victims — not repent to God — for the 20 centuries it has spent marginalizing and oppressing women and minorities. It can start by ending its meddling with women's reproductive health care and getting its rosaries off women's ovaries.
--
John Lapin is a junior majoring in philosophy.
