I was thinking about the new pope, noting in particular how notoriously conservative he's known to be. I worried consciously, in the following terms specifically, that perhaps he wasn't going to be able to "represent the interests" of many Catholics, liberal American ones and possibly ones from developing countries as well.
Then I caught myself, because I realized I was thinking about the pope in political terms. The pope isn't democratically elected, so having expectations of him as if he were might be inappropriate.*
But then I wondered again if that were really true. I'm not a Catholic, so in one sense the doctrinal dogma of the religion is none of my business. The problem is that I think it very much becomes my business as that dogma winds its way into my civic institutions. If dogmatic pressures are going to be placed on the laws and officials governing me then it is my business to care what they are.
This is not to say that because fellow citizens hold certain beliefs I should have the ability to scrutinize those beliefs and force them to conform to mine. Personal preference is personal preference, and individual political will should be freely expressable, regardless of the source from which it is drawn. What I am addressing is the much more vast political pressure placed upon my supposedly religion-neutral government by religious institutions as institutions to use its civic might to enforce the dogma of the church. When that happens it is my prerogative to make sure that dogma suits my interests.
There are two possible solutions which might ensure that my interests get served. One, to give non-Catholics like me voting rights in the Catholic Church to make sure that the dogma suits my will. Or, to ensure that no church, Catholic or otherwise, as an institution gets to set the policy of my government.
* There is another circumstance under which I think religious dogma is a legitimate concern of mine. I have had several good friends who are Catholic, for whom the tension between what they believe in their hearts to be right, and what they are required to believe is right, has been heart-breaking. They love their faith, they love their church. They see a beauty in their religion, in their faith, and in the general relationship Catholicism enables with God. But they can't just enjoy all those wonderful things without also abiding by the dogma, no matter how wrong, immoral, or contradictory they think it is. Instead they are forced to suffer in irreconcilable grief and guilt, whether they try to stick with the church or feel compelled to leave. So I do think it's my legitimate interest to care about the dogma because I care about my friends, and I don't want to see them keep getting hurt by the church they so love.
Comments (3)
Even if I were seriously worried about the views of the new pope, I wouldn't worry too much - he is, after all, 78. I'd spend my energy on worrying about the next one.
Posted by Koichi | April 20, 2005 8:32 AM
Posted on April 20, 2005 08:32
You know... I've been hanging back on posting, just 'cause I feel like you thought I was heckling you in the past, but I do feel like I have to respond to this one.
You seem to be arguing that either (i) the Catholic Church should be required to allow all persons (including non-catholics) to participate in the selection of its leadership or (ii) the Church (or its followers?) should stop trying to influence civil legislation (or perhaps stop making doctrinal statements about what you consider to be civil issues).
I strongly believe in a fairly expansive reading of the establishment clause, and am concerned about issues like state funding of religion. However, I don't understand why you would deny religious organizations the right to express proposed public policies or to lobby the government. A religious group, like any group, should have the ability to associate, to petition government, and to propose policies. And, of course, it should have the right to control its own membership and decision-making policies.
Would you also argue, for example, that the US Chamber of Commerce needs to have fully open elections if it wants to lobby Congress, that the NRA needs to represent the interests of those who (like me) abhor guns, or that the ACLU needs to give Pat Robertson a seat at its table?
Mark
Posted by (Mark) | April 25, 2005 8:48 PM
Posted on April 25, 2005 20:48
The problem with The Church is that because it's The Church it seems to be able to lobby with greater weight than mere individuals, or even other associations of individuals, are able too.
I don't entirely place the blame for this inequity on the church, however. As you say, as individuals they can try to influence whatever they want. My objection is that certain government officials seem so willing to grant them whatever they want BECAUSE they are The Church.
True, I am generally wary of undemocratic organizations gaining lobbying power over the government at the expense of voters' will. I think it can be problematic. But it's particularly problematic when that exercised power leads not just to bad policy but to bad policies that themselves violate the very Constitutional protections against them.
Posted by Cathy | April 26, 2005 5:52 AM
Posted on April 26, 2005 05:52