About 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV, according to UNAIDS. In 2007, three-quarters of all AIDS deaths worldwide were there, as well as two-thirds of all people living with HIV.Rebecca Hodes with the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa said if the pope was serious about preventing new HIV infections, he would focus on promoting wide access to condoms and spreading information on how best to use them.
"Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans," said Hodes, head of policy, communication and research for the organization.
I don't know if I could have said it better myself. In other news, courtesy of the AAP and Yahoo Australia, a Brazilian Cleric excommunicated a rape victim, her family, and a group of doctors for carrying out an abortion. The victim, a nine-year-old girl raped by her stepfather, could have died from trying to carry a set of twin fetuses to term making the abortion unfortunately necessary, according to the doctors.
"God's law is above any human law. So when a human law ... is contrary to God's law, this human law has no value," [Regional Archbishop Jose] Cardoso had said.
He also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church. Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious".
You've got to be sh*tting me. Both of these reports, bearing both non-utilitarian allegiance to dogma and uncompromising sexism, are exactly why I have left the Catholic church and remain skeptical of any religious institution and the tenants therein.
I understand my skepticism does a disservice to politically realistic, yet religious citizens, particularly those who live far away from where these atrocities happen, but your actions beg the question: What role do you play in this thing want to be a part of? If you believe in the divinity of Christ and his teachings (or other religious foundations) and you take your membership in your group seriously, then you either endorse these atrocities or condemn them. What are you doing about it? Furthermore, if you're cavalier about your membership and believe that excuses you from doing anything, then stop kidding yourself, drop the label, and do something about it anyway. Your fellow humans need you.
2 comments:
This is a powerful post. Our family has considered many times in the past few years abandoning Catholicism because of its re-entrenchment into narrow dogma and views that once seemed to be part of its past.
But it seems a bit naive to "call for action" in a context such as this. Certainly, any person with a conscience should not be afraid to speak it. But many of us remain in the Church because, not only does Catholicism answer some deep question for us and give voice and shape to inchoate feelings, but also because in so many ways it is a positive good in the world. We have believed that our continued presence can be testimony to our alternate views and can signal a willingness to help the Church find its better self.
I am not sure where the line must be drawn, at what point we must walk away -- somewhere, I know. But I don't believe membership in the Church commits one to its wrong views or, so long as one wishes to remain within it, requires one to publicly rail against it.
Donna, after turning this post over in my head for the week, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on these grounds:
Religious organizations don't change from the outside. Belief-centered institutions in general, including U.S. body politic, are only altered by their most active members. Those (religious) members are seldom the left-thinking individuals that you and I are. But they do the work; they get the power. This is why a Catholic priest has the minerals to tell a congregation that voting for Bill Clinton will require repentance. Roughly half his congregation bristles, but the priest has earned the right to say what he wants. So it follows, if an intelligent religious person wants change, they'll have to beat the radicals at their own game.
Dream with me a minute on the possibilities of this: Many Churches are conducted like a Democracy, with a council and president-like authority presiding. If they are bent to the will of the most progressive members of the congregation--or better, just replaced by them--change could happen rapidly. Less homophobia and sexism. More mercy and philanthropy. And realism. The Pope wouldn't oppose the use of condoms to prevent disease if a significant body of his followers were railing against him.
Furthermore, citizens can't escape voting their religion (or their lack of it). As liberals, we make the mistake of telling religious people not to vote their beliefs. Instead, we should tell them to vote with their hearts (as we do) and simply change the rhetoric that forms them.
Some say knowledge is power. I believe it's a gun in your mouth, compelling you to act. Any progressive, well-informed person supposedly devoted to a religious institution has a responsibility to act in the best interests of themselves and their fellow members. On these grounds, a call to action is far from naive, it's a responsibility that can't be escaped.
Post a Comment