 |
| Nope, no religious bigotry here in the Land of Tolerance! |
My last post, on
gender differences, drew attention from an unexpected source. I mentioned
that SisterLisa, the author of a
condescending piece on women’s ordination and male insecurity, had drawn
inspiration in part from a
piece of satire written for Forbes by
Victoria Pynchon. I just mentioned it; I neither praised nor blamed it.
In the marvelous world of cyberspace, that’s all you need;
it must have shown up as a trackback. Pynchon decided to be the first to
comment. As of this writing [3/21/13 @ 12:27 am], I’m having issues with IntenseDebate, so her
comment hasn’t shown up yet.
There are a few lines that deal with Pynchon’s own
experience of gender stereotyping and social role expectations. It’s not my
purpose to devalue or minimize them; while the examples she quotes may sound
quaint to postmodern ears, there are still parents who are pleased when their
daughter is a “girly girl”, and who are more apt to give them a cosmetics case
for their twelfth birthday rather than a chemistry set. No, I’m simply cutting
to the chase:
I have no business telling Catholics what they should do, think or believe. I’d prefer it if Catholics didn’t tell non-Catholic American women what they should do, think or believe. [That’s a first.] If Catholic writers would like to tinker with women’s lives, perhaps they should stick to reconciling the gap between the Church’s position on birth control (it’s wrong) and American Catholic women’s refusal to stop using it.
In other words, she’s happy to “discuss” gender biological
differences — so long as it’s her talking and me shutting up. Drat that pesky First
Amendment, which allows me to shoot my mouth off whenever I please on whatever
I please! Why … it even allows Catholics
to have opinions on secular subjects! O the outrage!
Of course Pynchon is being more than a little disingenuous.
If she felt it wasn’t her business to tell people in general what they should
do, think or believe, you’d never see another article or post with her byline.
If she believes she shouldn’t comment on Catholic beliefs or practices because
she doesn’t know enough about them, marvelous — she’s a refreshing exception to
the legions of pundits and self-appointed Wise Persons who regularly screw up
basic information about the Church (some of whom, sadly, claim to be Catholic
themselves).
But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Rather, it seems that
in Pynchon’s oddly constructed world, one that she shares with plenty of other
Americans, Catholics aren’t people. Or, rather, they’re not regular people, not real people … certainly not people who can be trusted to have a
worthwhile opinion about anything outside the confines of their little Catholic
enclave.
Consider Pynchon’s last sentence: “If Catholic writers would
like to tinker with women’s lives ….” You see, Catholic writers have this magic
power by which our written word is given fiat power. When we write,
Constitutional protections crumble into dust like the walls of Jericho, and
whole classes of people are forcibly brought into the Church to kneel at the
foot of the Pope. Strangely enough, as Pynchon herself points out, this awesome
force we wield so fanatically and despotically has no hold over Catholic
dissidents, especially “cafeteria Catholic”[*]
politicians such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who enthusiastically back
plenty of policies in contradiction to Church teaching without fear of
hellfire, excommunication or loss of votes.
So okay, maybe our writing isn’t that impressively powerful. Nevertheless, non-Catholic writers
persuade, argue, cajole and convince people concerning the reasonableness of
their positions; Catholic writers impose their religion on everyone else. Our
opinions are only true within the confines of our medieval, anti-scientific,
authoritarian patriarchy; never mind whether they’re backed by science,
history, logic or common sense — that’s irrelevant. By sheer dint of belonging
to a religion whose beliefs are authoritatively defined, our opinions are
poisoned at the well … except when they congrue with postmodern enlightened
thinking. (After all, the Pope is promoting environmentalism now.)
Yes, yes, every now and again you have to pat these little
Catholics on the head and kiss their babies because they’re a very critical “swing
vote”. But actually give them a voice
in the shaping of law and policy!? Fuhgeddaboudit! You might as well move the
president out of the White House and put a steeple on the Supreme Court
building, because the Church will take over everything.
I exaggerate, you say. I’m putting implications into Pynchon’s
words that were never intended.
Perhaps that’s so. I went to college at a time when it
seemed half the academic world was finding unconscious racism/sexism in every conservative
argument, and discerning institutional racism/sexism in every statistic that
indicated the Wise Persons’ policies didn’t produce the desired results
overnight.
On the other hand, Catholics don’t inhabit a space-time
bubble where secular laws have no impact; the laws affect us as much as anyone
else. Bad personal decisions aren’t placed beyond criticism by being labeled “private”;
bad policy is not made better by reserving discussion to select groups. This is
because those
so-called “private” decisions sometimes have unforeseen consequences that destabilize
communities and degrade life for everyone else.
We Catholics are outnumbered by non-Catholics by 4:1, and
that’s lumping in not only the “cafeteria Catholics” but the “Christmas and
Easter Catholics” as well. We know better than anyone else that we’re in no
position to dictate law and policy;
if we’re not a minority group, then there is no such thing.
But when we dare not open our yaps, when we can’t be allowed
to have an openly-expressed opinion on what the law should say because the very
utterance is “imposing our religion” — that’s beyond ridiculous. That’s
Catholic-bashing, pure and simple. Or, if you prefer (and even if you don’t),
it’s religious discrimination.
It’s not a “discussion” when only one party gets to talk.
