Oh, the Arrogance

I am a Seminarian about halfway through my Masters of Divinity program.  I have been studying the bible and theological interpretation for about 4 years.  What I’ve learned is that there are a lot of unanswerable questions, and many, many valid interpretations.

Last semester, in Introduction to Pastoral Care, we discussed how we might counsel someone, say someone going through grief or loss, whose theology we didn’t embrace.  The overwhelming class decision was; what right do we have to evaluate or judge any aspect of someone’s spirituality, especially if it provides comfort in a time of stress?  On what presumption would we pretend to know more about how that person connects with God than that individual?  What arrogance would that demonstrate?  As a second year Seminarian, this was clear to me, but unfortunately it’s not for the prospective Republican Presidential nominee Rick Santorum. 

This week, Santorum was quoted saying that President Obama has a ‘phony theology that is not based on the bible’.  Later, he gave several explanations of what he meant.  Regardless of these explanations, I’m struck by the arrogance of someone who believes he has a true read on the bible. 

Eight days later, Santorum doubled down on his shortsightedness on nuance, stating that John F. Kennedy’s speech on the separation of church and state made him want to ‘throw up’.  Misreading the point of the speech – that Kennedy would not allow his loyalty to Papal authority to take precedence over his loyalty to the constitution – Santorum decried a nation that barred people of faith from having a role in public policy.  “What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?”  Besides the obvious error – after all, he is a devout Catholic who has already served several terms in the US Senate, and this has obviously influenced his decisions - Santorum clearly showed his disregard for all people without faith.   He spewed his disgust on having a government run by only ‘secular’ citizens in the U.S. 

I don’t follow the Pope, or believe he is instilled with any type of divinity. I’m not alone in that - neither did Martin Luther.  But I do believe people have valid opinions that deserve consideration, and that people can reason through many disagreements. I disagree that the Pope, or any earthbound individual elected by men, is a representative of God’s word – except Jesus.  Except that Jesus wasn’t elected by ‘man’ to lead anything.  Jesus was despised by the people in power during his time.  He cast his lot with the despised, called for others to have compassion for the despised, and was despised for it.   He was hardly regarded as ‘the elect’ in his times.

Unfortunately, Santorum’s religious attitude of being ‘the elect’ with the one truth is prevalent in our modern society.  Pastors are quick to tell their flock to cut out of their circle anyone who does not profess their exact confession of faith.  Instead of embracing the inclusive approach of Christ, they focus on litmus tests and doctrinal purity of a faith that moves in the exact opposite direction. 

Raped 'Too Much'?

In the Christian communities of the 1st and 2nd centuries, some women actually joined the Christian movement to escape the trials of marriage and sex.  Women were property and legally had no rights or hope of supporting oneself, but as someone’s wife, put themselves at risk for death by childbirth.  The early Christian communities, by contrast, believed the Messiah would be returning within their lifetime, so marriage was not embraced. Their duty was to live in loving Christian community, elevating the values of generosity, compassion, and forgiveness.  It was a safe place for women to live out their life without harassment, the risk of childbirth, or impoverishment, but using their gifts to live the Gospel.

Fastforward to 2012, and women’s livelihood is still threatened by their biology, as we heard several times this week. 

On Sunday we heard Fox News Commentator Liz Trotta complain women in the military have caused a second bureaucracy to counsel women who are being raped “too much”.  What do we expect, she went on to say, when women put themselves in such close quarters with men?  Rape is a natural outcome, Ms. Trotta seems to be saying.  Of course, the early Christian communities would demonstrate otherwise.    

Then, in addition to the now infamous photo of the all-male panel testifying on the religious infringement of allowing women to control their reproductive organs, we were all treated to sage advice from 1950’s farcical morality.  Rick Santorum’s spokesperson, Foster Friess, explained that if women would just keep their legs together, we wouldn’t have to argue about contraception at all.  Never mind that when women did get pregnant in ‘his day’, they were sent away to have the child in secret or possibly maimed in back alley abortions.  Never mind that women bore this burden while the father of the child rarely had his life affected.  Never mind that most of his generation are now enjoying the benefits of Viagra while STDs are rising fast among seniors.  Friess seems to be saying that women’s morals alone are responsible for a promiscuous culture.  Which begs the question, do women have the right to both engage in sex and determine their own destiny by delaying or foregoing pregnancy?  Do women have the right to educate themselves, succeed in their career, and contribute to society without being chaste?  Or do we really feel that only half our population should be able to have sex freely?

These examples exempt men from any fault in their poor sexual behavior.  It both finds women incompetent in some way but also blames them for being the provocateur – either by opening their legs at all, or in the case of Liz Trotta, just for being present.  Contrast this to the communities living with Christ in their recent memory - communities where women were welcomed as sisters in bringing about a new way of living together – not with an eye for sex, but for brotherly and sisterly ‘love’.  Focusing on a woman’s reproductive function diminishes all the other incredible traits we possess.  But ignoring men’s role in any sexual situation is delusory and slanderous. It’s enough to make a girl long for the 2^nd Century.  

Whose Rights Matter? Catholics & Contraception

Several recent Facebook posts cited ‘tyranny’ of the US Government, referring to the mandate that contraception be covered by all insurance in the health reform bill, with no exemptions.  Catholics would like an exemption, not for themselves per se, but for the ‘employer’ that is the Catholic Church. Any tithe money paying for the vast ministries of the Catholic Church will also have to fund insurance, and hence birth control, of any employee against Catholic doctrine. 

I understand this argument of ‘boycott’.  Last year I gave up eating meat because I didn’t want my money funding abhorrent practices of the meat industry that disrespect life. I imagine it’s the same for a Catholic who believes life begins – the soul is born – at the moment of conception.  For a Catholic, ingesting a pill that disposes of an egg – fertilized or not – is the same as the surgery removing a fetus.  As a woman using birth control, I don’t agree, and find these arguments two wholly different things.  But I strive to respect others’ beliefs when they do no harm.

Which puts me in a quandary, because as a health care supporter and as a woman, I absolutely demand insurance cover prescription contraception.  The supportive arguments are broad. Economic; contraception costs much less than raising a ‘surprise’.  The law of lesser evils; give women birth control easily and cheaply and there will be less abortions. Medical; some woman are prescribed birth control to regulate bleeding from non-malignant tumors. There’s also personal; given that we take faith in this country to be a largely personal thing, carried out under one’s own conscience, then shouldn’t it be a Catholic’s responsibility to abstain from birth control as their own decision and leave federal policy out of it?  That brings us back to the ‘funding’ issue.  Is a Catholic  complicit in using contraception when their tithing pays for it?

Pathway to potential compromise is very narrow for HHS and the Church.  There is precedent in conscientious objection to military taxes; some pacifists keep laborious records required to file the conscientious objector status to the IRS. In that situation, the government tries to accomplish ‘tyranny by bureaucracy’, otherwise known as ‘kill them with paperwork’. 

But there’s another actor in this scenario whose rights might be violated, going against the idea of ‘doing no harm’.  What of employees of the Catholic Church who are not Catholic?  (This is not to mention Catholics who don’t uphold this particular tenet; that’s more of an internal discussion for members of the faith).  If the Catholic Church receives a religious exemption, thereby forcing all employees to forego contraceptive coverage or pay themselves, that could constitute undue hardship on low-wage workers. With coverage, my prescription costs me $30/month.  Without coverage, it could be $250 a month.  For someone on the cleaning staff making minimum wage, the $8.25 wage would be $1350 per month before taxes.  The prescription constitutes one-fifth of her monthly income.  If the Catholic Church wins this policy battle, would their policy not do financial harm to low-wage workers who may or may not ascribe to the Catholic principles on birth control?  

In the end, we have the freedom to practice any religion, as long as it does not infringe on the rights or wellbeing of any other individual. As an individual Catholic, the government is in no position to force you to take birth control.  But as an employer responsible in part for others' wellbeing, the definition of that freedom changes. In the words of a friend, it may well be one constitutional right stepping on another.  

Recently, a dear high school friend took issue with some of my Facebook propaganda regarding the wealth gap and the 99% debate.  He suggested that calling for taxes on the rich was 'divisive' and not helpful.  

It is divisive. That’s one of the points that is very hard for people of good will, like my friend, and especially those who are Christians to understand.  Jesus said to Zaccharaeus, "give away all you have and then you can follow me", while cautioning "it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven".    

I found myself wondering, who constitutes 'community'? Is it different for different people? Who, exactly, would this language divide?  And how is it possible that trying to raise awareness to the 98% of people in the middle class that they have more in common with other working people be more divisive than blaming the 'freeloading unemployed', 'welfare queens', 'community organizers' and 'socialists' that want to pay for education for the poor?


As a seminary student, I want to raise the issues of wealth and poverty, and I realize it is divisive even for those who are genuinely compassionate. It is uncomfortable to think that we might be complicit in a system that is genuinely unfair.  Our very way of life as Americans gratifies and elevates the ethic of earning more money - and our right to keep it.  But that very system, and all it's twists and turns of policy, tax loopholes, and cutting corners, may spell the end of our same beloved society.  All the current studies show that a working person cannot live in the same comfort as they lived 40 years ago, and especially with this recession with 5 people for every job, the downward pressure on wages continues.  Isn't that working joe across the street more like me than the guy giving millions to charities?  Who is my community? 


One obvious answer is that political forces continually try to erode any sense of community between neighbors.  A sense of community allows us to believe in a shared vision of the future. A shared sense of community allows me to feel safe leaving my bike locked on the street. A shared sense of community urges me to chastise the teen neighbor for littering rather than acting inconspicuous. A shared sense of community convinces members of that community to support it with resources, whether that be money, labor, or skill.  That sense of community comes from trust, shared values, and simple social connectedness.  Who wins when we suspect the darker-skinned guy across the street might be undocumented, or lazy, or taking more than his share of tax dollars?  Who wins when we fear or suspect our neighbor but exalt millionaires (or if referring to the 1%,  billionaires) whom we never met as model citizens?  Truly, I have worked beside and conversed with many undocumented immigrants, but I have never met part of the 1%.  For most of us, this is true. 


I caution myself from waxing nostalgic about a time 'when paying taxes was a civic duty' - since I haven't lived that long to be certain of such a time.  But when we look at the founding fathers, the sense of creating a fabric of society that lifted all boats (assuming you were white, male and a landowner) was there.  The narrative that government is useless and taxes are a burden has been prominent my entire life, but I do remember a time when teachers were honored and it was possible to be a 'public servant'.  The conservative narrative of the last 30 years has not only cemented the frame of wasteful government, it has degraded our respect for each other and a good day's work. And at it's heart, it's degrading any sense of community we have left.