Wrong/Right is More Important than Hateful/Not Hateful

Salvatore Cordileone, shown right, is the Archbishop of San Francisco.  He is also the head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) effort to oppose gay marriage.  Cordileone has been on the barricades of the gay marriage issue for a while now.  In fact, it is hard not to see his appointment to San Francisco a couple of years ago as a poke in the eye to the city and its famous gay community, but that's really neither here nor there.

As part of his effort to oppose gay marriage, Archbishop Cordileone will be attending the "March for Marriage" tomorrow in Washington, D.C.  This event is sponsored by the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, both prominent anti-SSM organizations.  Both organizations are, as well, classified as "Hate Groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Given the status of the sponsors, a number of civil and religious leaders in San Francisco--most notably Rep. Nancy Pelosi--called on the Archbishop, in a public letter, not to attend the event.

On Monday, Archbishop Cordileone responded with a press release, stating that he would definitely be attending the event.  His letter covers well-worn talking points: the event, and by extension he as well, is not "anti-gay" but "pro-marriage"; the groups sponsoring the event are not hateful, but the pro-gay marriage folks are; we need to be respectful and dialogue with each other.  Other than his citation to some obscure conference three years ago that he says took a pro-pedophilia position, there's really nothing in there of significant substance.

I don't know if Archbishop Cordileone hates gay people--his letter states emphatically that he does not, but perhaps he is not telling the truth.  I tend to think he probably is telling the truth that he doesn't hate gay people, at least not at the level of hating specific, individual gay people because they are gay.  I also don't know if the members of the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage hate gay people.  I suspect some do and some do not.

But here's the thing--I don't think that's what's really important here.  I have a problem with Archbishop Cordileone going to the event tomorrow not because I think the event is hateful, but because I think the message of the event is wrong.
If we take what the Archbishop says at face value, he wants to attend an event to "promote marriage" because he believes that SSM somehow threatens heterosexual marriage.  I think he's wrong about that.  The Archbishop also says that he is obligated out of Christian convictions to attend and oppose SSM.  I think he's wrong about that, too.  That is the real dispute, not whether or not groups or individuals are hateful.

The Southern Poverty Law Center provides a valuable service, because it identifies groups whose ideology may lead to violence.  But I think sometimes we get lost in the spiral of arguing about whether someone or some group is or is not hateful, and we lose sight of the underlying issue.  I don't think anyone is really arguing that Archbishop Cordileone is going to come back from this event and commit an act of violence against a gay person, or even that the vast majority of people attending this rally are going to commit violence.  But that doesn't make the event OK, because the ideas that are being offered are not right.  Even if ideas are all they are.

We like to talk about "hateful/not hateful" because it seems like an appeal to neutral principles.  Whether or not we agree on the particular policy position, we should (in theory) be able to agree on whether someone is hateful.  And it is a way to criticize someone without criticizing their ideas, in the hope of not offending those that have the same ideas.  It's a way to soft-peddle your position.  It's a bit of a cop-out.

We are seeing this in Catholicism in a big way.  We have a situation were the "official Church" is taking a particular side on certain social issues, and a majority (in some cases, an overwhelming majority) of Catholics in the pews are taking the opposite position.  That reality is not being addressed directly.  Instead, those on the opposite side of the official position are appealing to tone and rhetoric to criticize the official Church.  "Pope Francis says that we should be more welcoming," they say.  "We need to have a less harsh tone," they say.

These are nice rhetorical devices, but that's all they are.  50+% of American Catholics support same sex marriage, not because they think that Archbishop Cordileone's "tone" is too harsh or because he is "hateful."  They support SSM because they think the Archbishop is wrong on the issue.  And it's the same with birth control, or divorce and remarriage.

Are you a Catholic that thinks that the Church needs to change on certain key issues?  Then stop talking about Pope Francis's tone.  Stop complaining that this or that bishop's rhetoric is too "harsh," or that it is not "welcoming" enough.  Start saying, publicly, what you really think and feel.  Start saying that you think the Church and the bishops are wrong about birth control, they are wrong about gay rights and gay marriage, and they are wrong about whatever you think they are wrong about.  Because if you keep talking about "tone," you are going to get sucked into the spiral of arguing about whether or not this or that statement is too mean.  You are never going to get anywhere.  And yes, I am absolutely including myself in this advice.

At the end of the day, the Church ultimately doesn't care whether you think it is too mean.  But, it might care whether you think it is wrong.  If the official Church is made to confront the fact that very large segments of faithful, every-Sunday-at-Mass-Catholics are not on board at all with this program, maybe it will say "we don't care, love it or leave it."  But maybe not.  Maybe they will listen.  And, at least you have had your say.

The Second Vatican Council teaches that the members of the Church are the People of God.  You have a right to be heard as part of that family.  But make your voice heard criticizing Archbishop Cordileone for what he stands for, if that is your view.  Don't hide behind whether or not he is "hateful."

Update:  Friend of the Blog Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right just tweeted out a link to a story that Archbishop Cordileone is part of a secretive body called the Princeton Group--with the NOM folks, among others--to raise money to oppose gay marriage.  Fair to say the Archbishop is a wee bit obsessed with this issue, but I still think it is the position, not the way in which the position is communicated, that is the issue.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

On a Pelagian Politics, and Why It Would Be Good

I have two very hot takes.  The first is that Joe Biden is the best United States President in my lifetime, and probably the best since Franklin Roosevelt, and his many critics on both the right and the left are wrong.  The second is that the Irish monk Pelagius and his (mostly Celtic) disciples were basically right, and more specifically Pelagius's great opponent Augustine (and by extension the rest of the Western Church ever since) was wrong.  But the hottest take, the Hegelian synthesis of this Hotness, is that these two takes are ultimately the same take.  I believe that Biden is a great President because I am a Pelagian with a Pelagian world view, whereas American politics is fundamentally Calvinist, which is just Augustinianism taken to its logical conclusion. Let me try to justify this ball of hot takes. 1. Most of what we know of Pelagius comes from his opponents, especially Augustine and Jerome, who attempted (more or less successfully) to have him cast out of the church a
Read more

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more