Europe's Catholic Problem

Noah Feldman on Europe's Islamophobia:

... a hallmark of liberal, secular societies is supposed to be respect for different cultures, including traditional, religious cultures — even intolerant ones. There is something discomfiting about a selective respect that extends to the Roman Catholic Church, with its rejection of homosexuality and women priests, but excludes Islam for its sexism and homophobia.

If you find this parallel persuasive, you may be persuaded by the rest of the piece as well - up to and including Feldman's suggestion that Europe would be having an easier time assimilating Muslim populations if the continent were still home to millions of Jews.

Comments

Noah Feldman of course ignores the question of whether European countries ought to be "liberal secular societies" to begin with. Exactly _why_ is it _good_ to be a liberal secular society? Personally, I don't think it is. European countries need to have less liberal secularism, and return to its natural destiny as Christian nations. As it is said, "The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith."

One may agree or disagree with the prohibition of women priests but it certainly isn't _sexist_. Look at the long list of Christian female saints and mystics. We need to accept the fact that Islam is simply gravely deficient compared to Christianity, as the current Pope has said.

SOme European countries are of course still very devout- Poland, Ireland, and Greece among them- and that's a good thing.

Posted by Hector | June 21, 2008 8:33 AM

ok actually 'the faith is Europe" is just nonsense, on second thought- Christianity is a univrsal religion and cultures like Armenia and Ethiopia were Christianized long before most of Europe. Nevertheless it is true that Europe must continue to be Christian.

And the parallele between Christianity and Islam is just foolish. Christ did not f--- a nine-year-old girl, unlike Muhammed. (Of course, for that matter Jesus Christ did not experience sexual relations of any variety.)

Posted by Hector | June 21, 2008 8:36 AM

"One may agree or disagree with the prohibition of women priests but it certainly isn't _sexist_. "

Of course you're right here. It's all perfectly pragmatic. I mean, what if some woman menstruated all over some important holy stuff?

"Exactly _why_ is it _good_ to be a liberal secular society?"

First we had to explain porn to you, and now the virtues of SoCaS? It's going to be a long week, even though it's already almost over...

Posted by Bad | June 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Had a co-worker about 10yrs ago who'd made it to Baltimore from the former-Yugoslavia. Asked her about this and that and was fascinated (as I always am by our newly arrived immigrants) by her thoughts on our country.

Then I asked her some question about the Bosnian side of the war in her country. Her face took on a hardened angry cast. "They," she said "are TURKS." It was as if the Ottoman seige of Vienna was just yesterday.

I also remember meeting an Irishman during the 'troubles'. He knew the names of his ancestors who had been killed by Cromwell and the method of their murder.

I think we do not realize how fortunate we are to live in the 'New World'.

Posted by JohnMcC | June 21, 2008 11:12 AM

Isn't the reverse - that elites overlook the flaws of Islam but over-emphasize the perceived flaws of Catholicism - much closer to the truth?

Posted by James Kabala | June 21, 2008 11:37 AM

A liberal, secular society has its roots in philosophical premises that stem from Christianity. The equality of women, other ethnic groups,...et al are based in Biblical and especially Pauline writings and very little other historical literature. Without its Biblical base its motivational source dissipates and corruption reduces it to a parody of itself. The NY Times had an interesting essay (Normal, Deviant, who's to say) that I think illustrates this in its Sunday edition a couple of weeks ago.

Posted by dfb | June 21, 2008 12:06 PM

Our western culture is of course inextricably linked to the history of the Christian religion. We tend to like our culture. But it does not follow that the influence of the the Christian religion has always been beneficient. We also are the heirs of a lot of Non-Christian tradition. Some of which is wonderful, some not so much.

Which is a way of getting around to saying that anyone who thinks that St Paul's writings elevate the status of women in society should actually read what St Paul wrote about the subject.

Posted by JohnMcC | June 21, 2008 12:19 PM

An extremely dangerous misconception about Europe is that they are very multi-culti and tolerant, and that's why they have a homegrown Islamic terrorist problem. In fact, that's entirely wrong. Countries like France and Germany are not more tolerant of other cultures in the United States, in fact just the opposite. These countries are in fact filled with ethnocentrism and xenophobia. You know which Western country is actually the most open, accepting and tolerant of Muslim immigrants? The United States, a country which-- despite being enormous and having 300 million permanent residents-- does not have a home grown terror problem.

Posted by Freddie | June 21, 2008 12:39 PM

Noah Feldman of course ignores the question of whether European countries ought to be "liberal secular societies" to begin with. Exactly _why_ is it _good_ to be a liberal secular society? Personally, I don't think it is.

Neither does the rest of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Posted by Jef | June 21, 2008 12:42 PM

Re: Exactly _why_ is it _good_ to be a liberal secular society?

Because by long trial and error the alternatives have all turned out to be worse-- generally a good deal worse.

Re: I think we do not realize how fortunate we are to live in the 'New World'.

You used to be able to find some historical grudges in the South over the Civil War though I think that's well faded finally. And of course there's still resentment over slavery among Blacks and a long catalogue of wrongs against them among Native Americans. Though in the latter two cases the continued existence of some wriongs against these people helps keep historical memories alive. Still, you are wright: one true genius of our culture is that we are not chained to the hurts done our ancestors. Perhaps we ought append "Get over and move on" to "e pluribus unum".

Re: The equality of women, other ethnic groups,...et al are based in Biblical and especially Pauline writings and very little other historical literature.

This is not entirely true. The legal precedents go back to Rome where women, to be sure, had no specific political rights, but did have economic and civil status, rather than being treated as chattel or wards. Of all the ancient civilizations Rome was the freest with its women, and that tradition continued afterward. As to Christianity, many people would be surorised at this idea, bu tI think Christianity's major contribution to feminism was monasticism, which afforded women in large numbers a path out of marriage or whoredom, allowing them to live free of husbands, fathers etc. in a socially respectable role. For the first time after monasticism bnecame common, husbandless, childless women became commonplace, their value as human beings no longer connected to anything sexual.

Re: The United States, a country which-- despite being enormous and having 300 million permanent residents-- does not have a home grown terror problem.

Some of this is because the US does a better job of assimilating its Muslim immigrants. But also I think it's because we have an ocean between us and the Middle East, and the immigrants we get from there tend to be middle class people, often with entrepreneurial ambitions. Europe by contrast gets the Middle East underclass, much as the US gets the underclass from Latin American due to geographical proximity. Ill-educated people looking just to survive are more a problem than decently educated people hoping to prosper.

Posted by JonF | June 21, 2008 12:54 PM

A liberal, secular society has its roots in philosophical premises that stem from Christianity. The equality of women, other ethnic groups,...et al are based in Biblical and especially Pauline writings

Yes, that's why it took a mere 1830 years after Christ's death for the US to ban slavery, and 1890 years for the US to grant the right to vote to women. It was inevitable all along!

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 21, 2008 12:56 PM

Freddie:
What do you consider Tim McVeigh? Or the Anthrax attacks?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 21, 2008 1:12 PM

The Papists are coming! My values! My values!

Posted by praxis | June 21, 2008 1:17 PM

"Exactly _why_ is it _good_ to be a liberal secular society?" Hector

TR: The statement is vague or ambiguous. It depends on what is meant by "liberal" and "secular." The meaning of both words vary a good deal.

A society that allows the individual to do whatever they want, so long as they don't hurt others, and has a state that promotes non-religious values could be deemed a "liberal secular" one. A society that rejects all authority and traditional religion could also be "liberal secular." A society that simply respects human rights and has no state religion could also be called a "liberal secular society." As could a variety of other things. Unless I know what you're talking about no answer is useful.

"ok actually 'the faith is Europe" is just nonsense, on second thought-" Hector

TR: I was about to say. Although I believe Armenia is European. I'm not entirely sure how that works myself, but I think it's west of the Urals.

"An extremely dangerous misconception about Europe is that they are very multi-culti and tolerant, and that's why they have a homegrown Islamic terrorist problem. In fact, that's entirely wrong." Freddie

TR: I agree with you there. I knew this French woman who was describing a "dangerous cult" to me. After a few minutes I said "Oh, you mean the Amish?" She was horrified we allowed these horrible Amish to inbreed and reject technology. The French had a report on cults that even included the Quakers as I recall. In another case a Basque explained to me the difference between how they treat gypsies and we treated blacks, the difference being "Gypsies really are scum." (Ironic he was Basque as the Spanish didn't always have a good view of them) In many European countries ministers can be imprisoned for hate speech against homosexuals.

Posted by Thomas R | June 21, 2008 1:41 PM

Elvis, Elvis, Elvisberg- you're making the same mistake as your opponents are. You're equating Christianity with America.

Posted by Quietist | June 21, 2008 2:40 PM

"And the parallele between Christianity and Islam is just foolish. Christ did not f--- a nine-year-old girl, unlike Muhammed. (Of course, for that matter Jesus Christ did not experience sexual relations of any variety.)"

Lol. Great point! I guess we should just all be Christians.

But seriously, you're talking about these figures as if their life stories are historical fact or something. I mean they probably existed in some form or another, but do you really think it's accurate to say that whoever Jesus was, he DEFINITELY never boned? And that should form the basis for whether or not we should respect religion? Wtf are you talking about?

Posted by brian | June 21, 2008 2:42 PM

There is something discomfiting about a selective respect that extends to the Roman Catholic Church, with its rejection of homosexuality and women priests, but excludes Islam for its sexism and homophobia.

The equivalence here is astounding in a modern context. Islamic countries routinely ban women from driving, force them to cover up, and forbid them from holding private property. Gays and lesbians are publicly executed in Iran. In Catholic countries, women can't be priests and gays can't marry. The horror.

Posted by right | June 21, 2008 2:44 PM

What do you consider Tim McVeigh? Or the Anthrax attacks?

I was referring to Islamic terrorism. As they had no clearly expressed political motive, the anthrax attacks are definitionally not terrorism.

Posted by Freddie | June 21, 2008 3:06 PM

Europe doesn't really have a "Catholic" problem in that Catholicism by its history and definition is the leading world-wide church of Christianity, which is a universal religion. The church's position on homosexuality and women priests is based on principled reason, not any homophobia or sexism.

European nations are more ethnically minded given their history, though that is true in spades in the Muslim, particularly Arab world with its blatant dimmitude.

Feldman is a typical leftist, essentially plumping for his secular religion with its pious and incoherent multi-culturalism.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 21, 2008 3:47 PM

I think Europe problem is that it tends to essentialize inmigrants. They imagine all inmigrants cannot adapt to a new secular form of society, that they cant respect the laws of the country they are moving, that they will be the same they were when they came from the countries of origin; that there will not be generational conflicts between fathers and sons of inmigrants, that new generations will not defy the ideas of their parents etc: That is a typicall conservative view of things, but as usuall, not conected with reality at all.

On the other side, asking inmigrants to "accept certain values" before moving is utter nonsense and asking them to watch topeless women or gay people kissing may not be a gross human´s right violation, but is certainly a violation of their dignity as human beings(nobody should be forced to watch something they don´t want to see just to inmigrate).

DFB:

A liberal, secular society has its roots in philosophical premises that stem from Christianity."

No....

"The equality of women, other ethnic groups,...et al are based in Biblical and especially Pauline writings and very little other historical literature."

No they are not. Most of the churches have opposed historically, and still do, the equality of women. In the bible the women are called to obey their husbands. The idea of "etnicity" didnt even exist in the time of Paul, and while he claimed "all people are brothers in christ", he never condemed slavery (he even incited slaves to obey to their masters)

"Without its Biblical base its motivational source dissipates and corruption reduces it to a parody of itself."

The Bible is a big book written during thousends of years by very different people, in very different eras. It has no set of common values - theologian fantasies away- nor even the same image of God. But anyways, even with its terrible problems of xenophobia, european countries are doing well without the american obsesion with being fixed to the christian religion. So your whole hypothesis is bollocks...

Posted by Segio Méndez | June 21, 2008 4:30 PM

I was referring to Islamic terrorism. As they had no clearly expressed political motive, the anthrax attacks are definitionally not terrorism.

If that was the case, why were the only two politicians to receive the letters Democrats(And Senate Majority Leader and HJC Chairman to boot)? Did you see a copy of the letters up on Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anthraxnote2.jpg

The letters have a pretty political angle to them.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 21, 2008 4:45 PM

The church's position on homosexuality and women priests is based on principled reason, not any homophobia or sexism.

Man. I don't even think the Pope would try to make that argument with a straight face.

Posted by Jeff | June 21, 2008 5:57 PM

Daniel Pipes argued recently Here that there is a about a 5% chance that the Europeans and Muslims will work out a harmonious relationship; about a 47% chance that Muslims will with considerable strife dominate the Europeans and about a 47% chance that after much strife the Europeans will defeat and dominate the Muslims. His view is that the French riots awhile back were a precursor of what's to come.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 21, 2008 6:25 PM

...a hallmark of liberal, secular societies is supposed to be respect for different cultures, including traditional, religious cultures — even intolerant ones.

Uh, no. No actually existent "liberal, secular" society regards tolerance as infinitely elastic. No "liberal, secular" society on earth has ever extended no-holds-barred tolerance to any any and all cultural or religious practices. There are always limits to tolerance, and those limits are defined by the mores of the host culture. (This appears to be changing is some liberal, secular societies, but they will therefore soon be ex-liberal, ex-secular societies.) But I suppose if you are Noah Feldman, and apparently define "liberal, secular societies" a priori as ones that recognize no boundary to tolerance, then I suppose excluding anything at all as incompatible is the slippery slope to Hitler.

There is something discomfiting about a selective respect that extends to the Roman Catholic Church, with its rejection of homosexuality and women priests, but excludes Islam for its sexism and homophobia.

Putting aside James Kabala's comment, above, about the actual relative respect accorded to Catholicism and Islam by elites, and "right's" observation on the obvious lack of equivalence on the "women priests and gays" thing:

Why does Feldman believe that the relative respect accorded by the man on the street hinges, or should hinge, on the one or two matters of doctrine that happen to absorb him, and his class? Just how cramped is this guy's imagination? And is he putting us on? - because it cannot be possible that he is genuinely puzzled about attitudes to Roman Catholicism in Europe vs. attitudes toward Islam in Europe. If he is, then he is "discomfitted" by the fact that Europeans are...Europeans. Which may be the heart of the matter.

Posted by Rohan Swee | June 21, 2008 6:47 PM

And there's something shockingly ignorant about an author who equates Catholicism and Islam based on their views of homosexuality and women, which he misinterprets to begin with. Unreal.

Posted by scriblerus | June 21, 2008 7:10 PM

Feldman's suggestion that Europe would be having an easier time assimilating Muslim populations if the continent were still home to millions of Jews.

I think that's relatively uncontroversial: 20th century wars in Europe tended to the destruction of empires, and the murder or expulsion of minorities. Which left the remaining nations more ethnically homogenous than they might have been. Pre-war Europe, as Tony Judt says in Post War, really was multicultural. If the Jewish minorities in Europe had remained at pre-war levels, Muslim integration would've been less fraught.

Posted by emmanuelgoldstein | June 21, 2008 7:35 PM

The church's position on homosexuality and women priests is based on principled reason, not any homophobia or sexism.

What is the church's position on covering up multiple cases of child rape based on? Principled reason? Something else, perhaps? Hoarding gold, maybe?

Posted by ed | June 21, 2008 8:56 PM

Actually, the church has taken serious action on this issue, including a decision to presume that homosexually inclined men not be allowed in the seminaries. Those who use this matter perennially against the church need to find new ammunition to exercise their animus against the church

also, about 97% of the priests stayed faithful to their vows.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 21, 2008 9:57 PM

People like Noah Feldman love abortion, birth control, diversity, social engineering (bussing, integration) and homosexuality. People like Feldman hate Nativity scenes on their town square and the Easter season.

Feldmanites are for open-borders and diversity so that America can become more "diverse" and secular. However, in the case of Israel, mass immigration from the Indian subcontinent, Africa, or East Asia is not allowed.

Why the hypocrisy? Open borders here, why not open borders everywhere? If it's good for America, it will be great for Israel. Right Noah?

Posted by del | June 21, 2008 10:48 PM

"I don't even think the Pope would try to make that argument with a straight face." Jeff

TR: First, he probably would. Second, even if you think he wouldn't there's a clear difference between Islam and Catholicism in treatment of homosexuals and women.

I should start by saying "Islam", unlike Catholicism, is not under a single leader or even a single religion per se. So comparing Catholicism and Islam on the two issues is in many respects unfair or misleading.

In about 30 majority Islamic countries male homosexuality is apparently still illegal. This includes Senegal, which is a democracy. In three or four Islamic nations homosexuality is a death penalty offense. In about 12-16 homosexuality is not illegal.

In nations where more than 40% of the population is Catholic I find four or five that seem to ban or restrict homosexuality. In most Catholic countries, including ones that ban contraception like the Philippines, homosexuality is not a crime. (The Philippines does prohibit public acts of homosexuality, perhaps more harshly than public acts of heterosexuality)

In Catholicism women can be nuns, theologians, and in recent times are made Doctors of the Church. In Sufism female mystics have been respected, like Rabi'a, and traditionally a woman can lead a group of women in prayer. However I think it'd be fair to say that female theologians and philosophers are much rarer in Islam than Catholicism. The laws on divorce are also unequal in favor of the male. Polygyny is allowed while polyandry is forbidden. In principle Catholic men and women have the same prohibition against remarriage after divorce or polygamy. (Granted in practice there have been powerful Catholic men who got the annulment they wanted based on spurious reasoning)

Posted by Thomas R | June 22, 2008 1:56 AM

"Christ did not f--- a nine-year-old girl, unlike Muhammed."
That's not really accurate. He was a sheikh and was betrothed to a nine year old (the daughter of another Sheikh) as was common practise in 7th century Arabia and Europe. They didn't marry or, presumably, have sex until she came of age. Which then was roughly puberty so 13-4. The same age as Romeo and Juliet.

""The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith.""
I think Europe has issues with 'the' faith. Have done since the 17th century. I think, though, that the institutionalisation of religion in Europe - broadly speaking mostly people are in a state Church or the Catholic Church - is one of the reasons faith has declined. If Europe had a religious free market things might be different.

"Countries like France and Germany are not more tolerant of other cultures in the United States, in fact just the opposite. These countries are in fact filled with ethnocentrism and xenophobia."
That's an overstatement but I think relatively fair in the case of Germany where I believe citizenship is largely an issue of blood. But it's just wrong in France. France has 'Republican values' (claimed by left and right) that immigrants are required to learn and that are taught in all schools. They're broadly similar to American national identity. In both cases that identity isn't ethnic (witness the recent attacks by the Senat on regional languages) but ideological. France's immigrants are, unfortunately, economically locked out of the system but, according to polls, they're also the country in Europe where immigrants' views on social subjects are most alike those of the 'French'. France's current President is the son of a Hungarian and Greek Jews, their justice Minister an Algerian.

"His view is that the French riots awhile back were a precursor of what's to come."
We can but hope. Algerians, Senegalese (a country with a very heterodox interpretation of Islam), Congolese and Vietnamese united against the shameful situation in the banlieues campaign in the most traditionally French way imaginable: burning cars.

"On the other side, asking inmigrants to "accept certain values" before moving is utter nonsense and asking them to watch topeless women or gay people kissing may not be a gross human´s right violation, but is certainly a violation of their dignity as human beings(nobody should be forced to watch something they don´t want to see just to inmigrate)."
The Netherlands prides itself on its liberal attitudes and fears, in some cases rightly, that Muslim immigrants have been dangerous to those attitudes. You've got to remember how unique Holland is. Everywhere else in Europe the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant nationalists have been pretty far-right and open about their bigotry. The Swiss People's Party, the FN in France, the BNP in Britain. In Holland the anti-immigrant party was led by a bald gay man with a penchant for furs who used to be a Marxist professor of sociology.

Posted by Shaun | June 22, 2008 6:59 AM

Re: idea of "etnicity" didnt even exist in the time of Paul,

Ethnicity (and the awareness of it) certainly did exist in Paul's day.

Re: Actually, the church has taken serious action on this issue, including a decision to presume that homosexually inclined men not be allowed in the seminaries.

Are you sure about that? I know some rightwingers were pushing for such a ban, but I believe that gay men are still allowed to become priests provided that they are faithful to the church's teachings and practice celibacy. Which is exactly as it should be.

Posted by JonF | June 22, 2008 8:08 AM

Thomas R.,

It appears that contraception isn't precisely illegal in the Phillipines although access is difficult. Public clinics in the city of Manila are prohibited from providing them. However USAID up until last year did provide them, which would tend to suggest that they aren't illegal on a national level. I believe the country is also in the process of liberalizing its laws.

Posted by Hector | June 22, 2008 8:19 AM

Peter Leavitt:
Actually, the church has taken serious action on this issue,

Yeah, awesome job there,

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

including a decision to presume that homosexually inclined men not be allowed in the seminaries.

...but what about pedophiles, the real and apparent problem?

also, about 97% of the priests stayed faithful to their vows.

Wow, 97%. Out of how many?

what a wonderful institution.

Posted by ed | June 22, 2008 9:12 AM

Jon F, the church Congregation of Education December 2005 document included the following key paragraph.:

In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.

This was qualified by the following:

If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

Far from being the result of a far-right push, the policy was the result of a careful and balanced consideration of the issue.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 22, 2008 9:15 AM

"I believe that gay men are still allowed to become priests provided that they are faithful to the church's teachings and practice celibacy. Which is exactly as it should be." Jon F

TR: It's a bit up to interpretation, but I think the answer to this is "no."

"while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'"

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

It goes on to say those for whom homosexuality is "transitory" may be admitted after three years of celibacy. The difference between "transitory" and "deep-seated", in this context, I think has been debated some. Still "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" is apparently considered different from active homosexuality or joining with "gay culture" in the document.

I gather the idea is that people with a behavioral disorder should not, knowingly, be ordained and homosexuality is a disorder within the standards of Catholicism. (Presumably there are therefore documents prohibiting schizophrenics or recovered alcoholics from being ordained, but I don't know for certain)

Posted by Thomas R | June 22, 2008 9:21 AM

"Jon F, the church Congregation of Education December 2005 document included the following key paragraph."

TR: I didn't see yours when posting.

"Far from being the result of a far-right push, the policy was the result of a careful and balanced consideration of the issue." PL

TR: I have my doubts on that. The idea that people with deep homosexual tendencies don't relate to people right might be true, I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think it's a particularly careful and balanced notion. Also I think it might be obscuring the real issue with homosexuals.

Still the policy ultimately just relates to what was already the tradition. Traditionally priest candidates are to be Catholics of good standing or who've become Catholics of good standing. Presumably not to have any deep-seated tendencies that could theoretically cause problems. Specific to this the idea might be that an all-male seminary is maybe not the ideal place for a deeply homosexual man to find chastity.

The problem I had is I feel like the document is "picking on" this one particular disorder. There pretty clearly are other tendencies that lead people to particular sins. They really should have a document prohibiting alcoholics, even reformed ones, from being priests. Maybe they do, but I get the sense they don't. Alcohol I know, somewhat from family members, is linked to many priestly breaking of vows. And an alcoholic in the priesthood is going to be exposed to the taste of alcohol pretty often.

Posted by Thomas R | June 22, 2008 9:37 AM

The equality of women, other ethnic groups,...et al are based in Biblical and especially Pauline writings and very little other historical literature.

Not to be a nag or anything, but please source this bold claim.

Posted by really? | June 22, 2008 11:08 AM

Possibly he means Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." Although it's quite debatable that this is saying men and women should be equal in political, legal, or social status. It's more inarguably saying that the souls of believers are equal and one in Christ. (The idea women didn't have souls was NOT believed in by Medieval Christians, in fact I think such an idea could get one punished for heresy)

In China Pre-Christian Moism believed in universal love, but whether that meant equality I'm not sure. The notion of universality occasionally occurred among the Greeks, but I'm not sure if it ever gained significance.

Posted by Thomas R | June 22, 2008 11:35 AM

As Hector mentioned, the founder of Christianity did not marry a pre-pubescent girl. The tradition (we don't know the true history) is that Jesus wasn't married at all.

You can add that Jesus wasn't a military leader as was the prophet of Islam. And that he willingly surrendered himself to Rome's military authorities to die in their hands. Muslims might argue that Muhammed and his followers had to take up arms to defend (/spread) the faith, but it is quite a contrast to the persecutions that Christians were willing to suffer through and that ultimately their faith prevailed.

What Muslims "need" is a Reformation. No amount of beneficient-Superpower intiated wars can achieve that. By my timeline, (which doesn't mean much): Islam was founded about ~500 years after Christianity. The Protestant Reformation was ca 500 years ago. They are due...

Reform Judaism developed for a large part in this country. We can only hope that a Reform Islam that will emerge will come from either Europe (which has quite a head start on us with Muslim immigrants) or from the U.S. In both places there is the freedom/opportunity to practice the faith and also learn to live in a developed economy.

This needed Reform will not be a singular movement. There will be a response (Counter-Reformation, Conservatism, Hasidism) which in the best case scenario won't be Wahabbi-retrenchment.

But, which is a more important future threat for a conflagration: Europe's Catholic Problem and who has more children there -- OR -- whether Muslims or Christians have more babies in Sub-Saharan Africa?

Posted by some thoughts on this day | June 22, 2008 12:13 PM

Her face took on a hardened angry cast. "They," she said "are TURKS." It was as if the Ottoman seige of Vienna was just yesterday.
I also remember meeting an Irishman during the 'troubles'. He knew the names of his ancestors who had been killed by Cromwell and the method of their murder.
I think we do not realize how fortunate we are to live in the 'New World'.
Posted by JohnMcC

In fairness to the Greeks and Balkan ex-Dhimmis, their slaughter, enslavement, 2nd class citizenship was a very long time - 500 years - and didn't end over what happened up north at Vienna. The Turks were still doing mass butchery in the late 19th, early 20th century of Greeks (1,000,000 killed in Anatolia proper or eradicating Greeks off Aegean islands as late as the 1920s.) and Balkan subjects suffered rampant Islamic terror in Bosnia and Kosovo in the late 80s, early 90s as Yugoslavia broke up and Muslim high-breeding demographics and US bombs drove Serbs off lands that were Serb as long as the Serbs existed as a people.

Of course, further east, we all know what the Turks were doing to the Armenian Christians as they paused in butchering Christian Greeks.

Just another part of the "Bloody Borders" of Islam.

Posted by chris ford | June 22, 2008 12:30 PM

Thomas R.,

Isn't there a prohibition on crippled people and people with physical ailments joining the priesthood? (presumably on the theory that the priest is supposed to represent Christ to the people and it would be unfitting for, say, a lame man to represent Christ). I may be completely off here but I seem to remember that being referenced in some book. If you consider homosexuality to be an innate affliction like blindness or lameness then it would seem to make sense for it to be a disqualification for the priesthood quite apart from any _moral_ issues.

Thoughts on This Day,

An Islamic Reformation won't solve the problem. The Wahhabis _are_ the Islamic Reformation.

Posted by Hector | June 22, 2008 1:25 PM

Hector, I doubt whether the Catholic church would deny the priesthood to someone otherwise qualified due to a physical ailment. If this is so, you need to give us a source.

The Church's view of homosexuality is summarized in its Catechism as follows:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

While in the past the Church assumed that a priest's vow of chastity could overcome a tendency to what it views as acts of grave depravity, it now on a prudential basis no longer does so.

Lest anyone view this as some sort of "homophobia," the Catechism, also, states that:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 22, 2008 4:24 PM

Mr. Leavitt,

I was asking a question, not making a claim. Now that I've looked it up:

--Irina Metzler (Disability in the Middle Ages: Routledge Press, 2006) claims that various decretals from the twelfth century did forbid men with a physical deformity from entering the episcopacy, but apparently not the priesthood. A dispensation from higher authority was sufficient to override the prohibition.

--Norman Pounds (A History of the English Parish: Cambridge University Press, 2000) claims that "a would-be priest had to be legitimate and freeborn, sound in body, free of physical blemish, and sufficiently well-educated to carry out his office." An episcopal or papal dispensation was sufficient to override any of these requirements.

The basis for such prohibitions would appear to be
Leviticus 21:17-23:

"Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.......Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them."

Posted by Hector | June 22, 2008 5:10 PM

Re: Far from being the result of a far-right push, the policy was the result of a careful and balanced consideration of the issue.

Given that someone who is "practicing" homosexuality cannot also be practicing celibacy its hardly a surprise that sexually active homosexuals are barred from the priesthood. Ditto for heterosexual men who cannot or will not accept the Church's requirement of celibacy. However that does not equate to a blanket ban on gays, just on non-celibate gays. and again, that is as it ought to be. And yes, there was (and still is) a rightwing push to blame the Church's pedophilia crisis on gays and, even more disgustingly, to use it to score points in the culture wars, rather than putting the blame where it belongs: on bishops who ought have been warding their flocks from predators, not enabling and cover up for them.

Re: Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.

???
If you have to have sex with women in order to relate to men and women than that makes a celibate priesthood a bit problematic, no?

Re: I gather the idea is that people with a behavioral disorder should not, knowingly, be ordained and homosexuality is a disorder within the standards of Catholicism.

Even if you accept that it is a "disorder"
I don't see why that should mean a sexually non-active gay person should be banned.
Everyone is tempted to various sins, one would not require priests to be free of temptation. Or compare this to another disorder: a person who has suffered alcoholic tendencies would not be banned from the priesthood provided he was abstentious (and despite the very obvious problem that a non-drinking priest poses in regards to the Eucharist). This is simply scape-goating a whole class of people for he sins of specific individuals-- which is consistent with neither Christian charity nor simple justice. Perhaps the Church is compounding its initial grievous wrongs with new ones.

Re: What Muslims "need" is a Reformation.

The Reformation in Christendom was accompanied by all sorts of violence and awfulness. Not sure that what's Islam needs.

Posted by JonF | June 22, 2008 8:07 PM

"Isn't there a prohibition on crippled people and people with physical ailments joining the priesthood?" Hector

TR: Peter indicates the answer is no, which is true but there's a bit more to it.

I do know of people discouraged or forbidden from the priesthood because of physical disability. I believe Blessed Andre Bissette(sp?) had something like this. However it wasn't because it was "unfitting for a disabled man to represent Christ." The priesthood can be quite demanding on time and activity. Therefore it was seen as perhaps too demanding of work for the disabled and I think there's a certain logic to that. (Maybe in the Middle Ages there was also some sort of folk horror of deformity, but this would be irrelevant to modern ie post-Trent Catholic life)

That being said I know of a man with my condition who's a priest and I personally know a legally blind man who's a priest. He sort of has to touch your face a bit when giving you Communion, to know where your mouth is, but otherwise he does fine. I think if a disabled person is able to handle the job there's no impediment to them. Although if they physically can't handle the activity I think practical concerns might keep them from it, or from being a parish priest anyway.

"While in the past the Church assumed that a priest's vow of chastity could overcome a tendency to what it views as acts of grave depravity, it now on a prudential basis no longer does so." PL

TR: If that's the reasoning then I think the Church is making a mistake on this matter. (This is a matter of discipline, not dogma, so I think I have that right)

If gays can't be trusted to stay chaste as priests then why can they be trusted to do so in other capacities? Does having a deep-seated disorder just mean you can't be Catholic at all? I find that strange.

I could understand the notion the seminary might offer an uncomfortable environment for them or it might drive away heterosexual applicants. The "with prudence we realized you're depraved and not fit to be around people, but you know don't take it personally."

Posted by Thomas R | June 22, 2008 11:01 PM

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

Doesn't that mean bisexuality is kosher as long as the hetero longings have greater puissance?

INVISABUL SLIPRY SLOEP.

Posted by really? | June 23, 2008 11:04 AM

I don't know why Muhammed's marriage to a young girl is mentioned as his departure from Jesus or any other founding religious figure...What about the fact that Muhammed was basically a military general who supported and sanctioned violent acts against other humans time and time again? Might this not influence a religion? What other religion was founded by a man who ordered the beheading of hundreds of unarmed men?

A couple of examples:

-In the Massacre of Banu Quraiza, Muhammad order the beheading of 600 to 900 adult men (determined by pubic-hair growth) and he himself chopped off a few heads. He enslaved all the women and children of the Jewish tribe. The women were kept as sex-slaves with Muhammad himself taking a beautiful Jewish woman as his own sex-slave and sold the rest of the captives into slavery. He also looted the property of the murdered Jews and took possession of all their wealth and properties. Allah, like a godfather and mafia chieftain of the Muhammad's criminal gang, rejoiced this barbarous and heinous acts of slaughtering the Jews and enslavement of their women and children by creating 5 teachings in the Koran as the Eternal Laws of God.

-At the Massacre of Khaybar, Muhammad brutally tortured a Jewish chieftain for extracting information about where he had hidden his treasures. When the treasure was uncovered, the chieftain was beheaded. This chieftain was the husband of the most beautiful Jewish woman of Khaybar, the 17-year-old Safiyaah. Safiyaah's family members had been annihilated by Muhammad at the Banu Qurayza massacre. Now having beheaded her husband, the Prophet took Safiyah as his sex-slave and copulated on the same

To anybody who says these are just recorded stories and not historically verified, it does not matter, for these events are all recorded in the hadith and sunnah, in Islamic history, and all understood (and generally praised) as part of Muhammed's story.

Posted by Timosha | June 23, 2008 2:26 PM

Thomas R.,

Yeah I generally agree with you. I think that celibate gay people should be allowed to be priests. On the other hand I don't have a particularly strong opinion-- I'm not a Catholic so it's not my business. I think the Catholic church should do as they like, and no one should be able to tell them otherwise.

Posted by Hector | June 23, 2008 11:23 PM

"Feldman's suggestion that Europe would be having an easier time assimilating Muslim populations if the continent were still home to millions of Jews."

But it would also be fighting Israel's wars in Iraq and Iran

Posted by Tom | June 24, 2008 6:22 PM

Europe must return back to its Catholic/ Orthodox Aristocracy . i am a Syrian catolic from India and i think we have to oppose the Protestents and muslims(terrorists and rapists ) who diluted the Jeudo - Christian doctrines with ideas like pre-destinarian theory . i am sure that modern day's
social state is highly influenced by Jeudo / Cathilic / Orthodox principles .

Posted by james / | July 21, 2008 1:26 PM

We need Catholic/ uniate / Orthodox churches

Posted by james j | July 21, 2008 1:31 PM

Why u are keeping mumb about the pedophile , terrorist muftis of Europe , US and Australia ??

Posted by james | August 12, 2008 12:08 PM