Petty P.R. of the Catholic Church

It appears that, in the vernacular of the Catholic Church, "allegations of sexual abuse" is synonymous with "petty gossip."

These allegations are common enough to suggest an inherent problem in the Catholic Church that warrants serious reform to alleviate. The sexual indiscretion of priests and the downplaying (at best) and blatant cover-up (at worst) of these acts by their superiors is well-documented and has been for quite some time now (The documentary Deliver Us from Evil was released in 2006, and this responded to, rather than caused, intense media coverage on these cases of abuse). In that documentary, it was clear that the Church was not intent on seriously addressing the problem. The strategy for dealing with priests accused of molestation was, quite simply, to move them from one church to another, which, of course, did nothing to mitigate the problem. It was clear that if the Church failed to deal with individual cases of molestation properly that they certainly didn't have an overreaching strategy to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of children in general.

That was then, of course, but if there was any question of how the Church plans to address these problems in the future, it has been answered by the disconcerting and juvenile comments by the Pope and his internal supporters. Maureen Dowd recognizes the improbability of any serious action being taken because the Pope has failed to even "to say anything long, adequate and sincere about the scandal and what role he has played." The initial strategy of the Church remains: sheer responsibility and treat the problem as if it is illusionary (or, as Andrew Sullivan metaphorically states, "go into the bunker").

Historically, the Church hasn’t exactly been a beacon of change, so I didn't expect the Church to announce a plan to expel priestly molestations from the Church. But labeling such allegations against the Church and the Pope as "petty gossip" is astounding; the Church took their role in the controversy to a new level of offensiveness. Actually, perhaps there was a change in strategy: what was staged ignorance now appears to authoritarian arrogance.

These problems have been going for long enough with no effect on how the Church conducts its business, and the pessimistic who believe that injustice will remain unpunished may be warranted to suggest so. Yet, I believe (perhaps naively) that the most recent allegations against the Pope are going to cause more of a stir in the Church itself (perhaps there will be more like Rowan Williams who may even decide not apologize for their remarks. I also believe that should enough followers finally become fed up and earnestly criticize the Church's handling of these events and possibly leave the Church altogether, the Church may be forced to reform (or at least, as Dowd fantasizes, require the Pope to run television ads and take part in other assuaging P.R. stunts). What is different about these allegations is that they are directed at the Pope himself. Cover ups by archbishops are rather serious and, arguably, should have been enough to initiate a sea change in the Church, but if any criticisms are going to carry weight, they are the ones being wielded now. These allegations, valid or not (though the evidence appears to be valid), are symbolic. The taboo of attacking the head of the Catholic Church may not be so taboo anymore, and dismantling the perceived authority of the Church may be what is required to alter the way the Catholic Church conducts its business (I repeat "conducts its business" because "conducting business" and "using spin tactics" are the best phrases I can think of to describe the Church leaders' sophistry).

The Church has overseen grave injustices, and reforms (whatever they may be) are necessary. If there is a time in which these reforms will become necessary in order to appease disenchanted followers and recoup support (most importantly, financial support), it is now or will come very soon. It would be a much smoother transition were the Church to accept responsibility and make the necessary reforms on its own. But if anything in this controversy is clear, it is that the Church will continue to be disingenuous and manipulative. Hopefully the requisite number of followers needed to enact change will be reached as the role of Pope in covering up abuse cases becomes clearer.

Its Not That Bad: The Plight of Atheists in America

Social biases have existed throughout human history, and while they are ameliorated in some societies, they cannot be extinguished. Social bias is a natural expression of mankind resulting from an individual’s inclination to fear what is unknown or unfamiliar. This natural fear of the unknown has obvious advantages in the natural world, but the expression of this fear in the civilized world has deleterious effects on the cohesion of society. It would be inaccurate to suggest that these natural tendencies are not dangerous, but compared to the ill-effects of institutional discrimination, isolated social discrimination is relatively non-threatening. From a pragmatic perspective, it is also advantageous to focus on eliminating institutional biases for two reasons: institutions have far greater power to subjugate minorities and to promote tolerant and enlightened views on social relations. Thus is seems hasty of Wendy Kaminer, author of “Atheists Need Not Apply,” to compare the uncomfortable yet relatively minor discrimination experienced by Atheists in America to the much more serious and degrading institutional biases experienced by other minority groups today and in recent American history. Kaminer’s comparison of the plight of Atheists to the institutional discrimination of other minority groups detracts from her argument regarding the relative lack of progress of Atheists and belittles the discrimination experienced by other groups.

Kaminer does not fail to articulate the social bias experienced by Atheists. Some key survey statistics cited by Kaminer help describe how pervasive these biases are:

“A majority of Americans consider belief in God essential to morality, the Pew Forum confirmed in 2007.”

“Resistance among people affiliated with a religion to intermarriage with atheists may be stronger than their resistance to gay marriage: seven in ten religious people surveyed by Pew would oppose or resist intermarriage with an atheist.”

“In their 1983 book, Dimensions of Tolerance: What Americans Believe About Civil Liberties, Herbert McCloskey and Alida Brill reported that 71% of people surveyed believed that atheists ‘who preached against God and religion’ should not be permitted to speak in civic auditoriums, as opposed to 59% of survey respondents who believed that gay liberation groups should not be allowed to use public halls to advocate for gay rights.”

What Kaminer doesn’t lack in survey statistics she lacks in examples of clear institutional discrimination against Atheists. I don’t feel quite comfortable stating that these examples do not exist; I do not, however, have an aversion to stating that any ostensible examples of institutional discrimination against Atheists are relatively minor compared to the discrimination experienced by other minority groups.
Kaminer attempts to avert possible backlash against such comparisons:

“I don't mean to set up any grievance competitions between historically maligned groups, much less suggest that being an atheist in America is harder than being gay. In general, closeting your lack of faith is probably easier and a lot less stressful than closeting your sexuality.”

Nonetheless, doesn’t the act of comparing the plight of Atheists to other more maligned groups set up a sort of competition? What other point could be present? Kaminer states that her goal is to compare the progress of other discriminated groups to what she believes is a lack of progress in the experience of Atheists. But the reason for this difference is clear: Blacks, women, and gays have had much more ground to make up. In general, Atheists have not experienced difficulty in marrying, finding employment (and earning fair wages), joining sports teams, and enrolling in schools under the institutions present in America. Thus the title of her article “No Atheists Need Apply” is not only irrelevant to the arguments she presents, it is also inaccurate and inconsistent with the experience of Atheists.

Further, it may be self-centered and arrogant to suggest that the apparent social bias experienced by Atheists is something unique to the Atheist situation rather than mainstream religions in general. Is the condition of the Atheist really that different from that of the Buddhist, the Ba’hai, or the Jainist? In fact, research regarding the relatively low status of Buddhists in America suggests the point I made above: that an individual’s familiarity with a particular religion corresponds to his/her comfort with the practitioners of that religion. I’m not sure that there is anything inherent in Atheism that makes its adherents subject to greater discrimination than other relatively obscure religious groups. If Atheists want their case better represented, they are better off not comparing their experiences to groups that experience serious and disparaging discrimination.