Criticizing religious immorality

Randy Cohen, in his “Moral of the Story” column that appeared in the New York Times Sunday Magazine on October 26, 2009, argued that American society would not accept the moral standards of the Roman Catholic Church from any non-religious organization. In particular, Cohen berates the news media for not criticizing the Roman Catholic Church for its misogyny and homophobia. He recognizes the former in the refusal of the Roman Catholic Church to ordain women as clergy and the latter in the Roman Catholic Church’s attitude toward same sex relationships.

Cohen prefaces his observations by noting the Constitutional protections afforded religious belief and practice. However, he contends that those Constitutional protections do not justify an absence of public moral discourse about religious beliefs and institutions. (Randy Cohen, “Can We Talk About Religion, Please?” New York Times, October 25, 2009)

Cohen’s observations are timely and accurate. Given the diametrically opposing views of social justice found in secular United States society (women and men have equal rights and legal standing) and in the Roman Catholic Church (women inherently lack the ability to stand in Christ's place at the altar), one must ask, “Who is right?” Both secular society and the Roman Catholic Church cannot be right on this point.

Identifying the image of Christ with a priest’s genitalia trivializes the broader theological concepts undergirding the Roman Catholic understanding of priesthood. Furthermore, science increasingly views gender as a spectrum rather than two distinct categories, male and female. Refusing to ordain women lacks any sound theological rationale.

Anglicans who subscribe to the same view, opposing the ordination of women, are even more inane. Anglicanism emphasizes three sources of authority: the Bible, tradition, and reason. This “three-legged stool” presumes that each source informs and is informed by the others.

The Bible teaches that menstruating women are unclean and should live outside the community until a ritual cleansing following the end of their menstrual period. The Bible also teaches members of the faithful community to stone blasphemers, i.e., those who misuse God's name. Usury – the charging of interest, no matter the rate – is forbidden. I do not know a single Anglican who follows any of those teachings. Menstruating women remain in their homes. Blasphemers not only find toleration but also attend worship with impunity. Most people loan money at interest in the form of interest earning bank deposits or of owning bank stocks (even if indirectly through a mutual fund). In each case, tradition and reason appropriately shape the interpretation of scripture.

In other words, refusing to ordain women based on scripture that culture shaped is misogyny, pure and simple. Should religious organizations in the United States have the legal right to refuse to ordain women? Absolutely yes. I proudly served in the U.S. Navy for twenty-four years to defend that right.

Should other Churches and the secular media boldly name that refusal the sin it is? Absolutely yes. Sin is sin, whether in secular society or in the Church. More columnists need the courage and honesty to echo Randy Cohen.