What Is a Religion?
I was reading Vader’s excellent post about the Catholic Bishop’s response to Congressman Kennedy.
Vader connects the Bishop’s response to his belief in Catholic authority. While this is undoubtedly true, it’s actually unnecessary to realize the moral authority that Bishop Tobin has in this situation.
Having spent time on Mormon Matters, a site (originally, and probably still) primarily aimed at Cultural Mormons (i.e. ones that don’t believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church) I recognize in congressman Kennedy’s response the same beliefs that permeate Cultural Mormons.
Their argument goes something like this: I’m a Mormon too and so I have claim on the Mormon Church. Many of us go to Church still. Some of us even pay tithing still. So we should have the right to help steer the Mormon Church in their beliefs and doctrines.
I beg to differ.
This is an illogical position that mistakes “church” and “state.” If a religion/church were a civic community and if, by extension, tithing was a sort of dues or tax, then I would agree with them that they have a right to help steer the direction of any church that they care to pay money to or donate time to.
But that is not what a religion is. A religion (or church — I use the two an their interchangeable sense here) is a specific community joined by their beliefs. A person that does not believe the same as that community is not in a position to steer that community.
Let’s use a non-religion as an example, but one that is founded on a set of beliefs: The Sierra Club.
What if the Sierra club couldn’t decide what their beliefs were and anyone that carred to participate or donate money got to decide for them. It would be a small matter for, say, businesses to pay dues to the Sierra club and then remove them as a thorn in their side.
Well, obviously that doesn’t work for the Sierra club and it doesn’t work for any community based on shared beliefs. Ignoring the question of authority from God for the moment, though that is hardly an unimportant point, what gives you a right to help decide the direction of your chosen faith community is that you share their beliefs.
Tobin’s answer was perfect:
…It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?
In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?
My experience is that Cultural members of a faith community — be they Mormon or Catholic — want to scream “you’re taking away my religious freedom!” But this isn’t the case. There is, of course, nothing stopping Kennedy from starting his own Catholic Church, for example. (The Really Reformed and Reorganized Catholic Church?)
I suspect an objection Cultural Mormons would raise to the above argument is that it’s wrong for a faith community to excommunicate members which don’t share their beliefs, but have a cultural heritage in common.
I personally don’t see that as a “moral” issue. How could it be immoral for a religion to define who is part of their religion? The worst that can happen is that those that are “out” start their own.
But I do see it as a matter of prudence. In practice, I think it’s best that faith communities be as tolerant as possible with people who want to participate in their community even if they don’t believe in it. And why not receive all the help they can get, right? And isn’t that the theoretically best place for a non-believer to be?
But allowing Cultural Members to be a part of the community is not the same as allowing them to run it or take charge in it and start setting policy. So I see no rational way around the fact that Cultural Members are not the same thing as Believing Members and can’t be treated the same way. This may not be a popular message, but it’s the only rational one that doesn’t destroy religious freedom.
Agellius
November 13, 2009
I agree with everything you said. But an additional reason that people don’t get to “campaign” to change the beliefs of the Catholic religion — as well as any other religion that claims to have been revealed, or to continue to be revealed, by God — is that the beliefs in a revealed religion are supposed to be received by the members of the religion, not created by them.
When you start letting members create beliefs, or allow them work to create democratic pressure among members to change beliefs, you abandon the claim to be a revealed religion and admit that you are a man-made one. This is totally at odds with the nature of the Catholic Church as it perceives and describes itself.
You are right that this mistakes church for state: The state may very well give you the right to hold any opinion or belief you want, and work to change the beliefs and attitudes of your fellow citizens to conform to your own. But the church, insofar as it claims to be a revealed religion, does not. You need to decide whether you are a member of the church first and the state second, or vice versa.
Adam Greenwood
November 13, 2009
Agellius, I think that additional reason that religion needn’t poll its members, is spot on, and I reckon Bruce N. would agree, as per this passage,
“Ignoring the question of authority from God for the moment, though that is hardly an unimportant point”,
or, as C.S. Lewis might put it, God is not in the dock. You are.
J. Max Wilson
November 13, 2009
Great explanation. I agree.
Bookslinger
November 14, 2009
Yeah, I thought of the liberal wing of the bloggernacle when I read Bishop Tobin’s letter.
Bruce, doesn’t MM keep some token TBMs/Iron-rodders as permabloggers?
Mark Brown
November 15, 2009
In the past 24 months, some of the ostentatiously conservative participants in the bloggernacle have expressed their public disagreement with official church statements on three different issues: stem cell research, illigal immigration, and now housing and employment rights for homosexual people.
I am very happy to see the denunciation of these cultural Mormons, ark steadiers, and faithless phonies on this here blog.
Vader
November 16, 2009
Quite right. When the Church refuses to take a position on stem cell research, it’s appropriate for conservative, orthodox Mormons to refuse to take a position as well. Um … right?
Likewise, the Church’s opposition to certain immigration reform proposals means orthodox, conservative Mormons must be opposed to all immigration reform proposals as well. Um … right?
And the Church’s support for nondiscrimination in housing and employment against homosexuals means that Temple sealings for gay couples are just around the corner. Um … right?
Bruce Nielson
November 16, 2009
Agellius,
I agree with everything you are saying completely. (Adam’s quote of me shows that.) My article was taking the stance “even if it isn’t true, the liberal religious point of view is still irrational.”
>>> Yeah, I thought of the liberal wing of the bloggernacle when I read Bishop Tobin’s letter.
Bookslinger? There’s a conservative wing of the bloggernacle out there? Where?
>>> Bruce, doesn’t MM keep some token TBMs/Iron-rodders as permabloggers?
Yes, me. I quit.
Actually I hestiate to use the term “TBM” and I’m not entirely sure I’d fit the mold. But compared to the other permabloggers there, I was like radical TBM to the max.
I don’t think there is really a way to allow open dialog between all sides. At least MM failed to do it despite (in my opinion) the best of intentions.
I used to believe it could be done, but I feel I was proven wrong, at least so far.
Not that I dislike MM, now mind you. I think it’s fine for what it is. I just don’t believe it’s really primarily about dialog (though that does sometimes happen there.) MM is the same as Sunstone. It desires and allows more conservative voices (good for them) but it’s primarily about forming a rejectionist community to replace part of what was lost.
I have mixed feelings about MM and Sunstone. They aren’t all bad or all good. They are sort of a niche that needs to be, but I can’t see any good way for a Believer to properly interact with them due to a variety of reasons.
Vader
November 16, 2009
I gave up on Sunstroke and Diaphog quite some time ago. If you’re writing as a believer to believers, they’re the wrong venue. If you’re writing as a scholar to scholars, they’re also the wrong venue. They’re trying to straddle a divide that is too great, and, in the end, they seem too willing to come down on the unbelieving side.
Bruce Nielson
November 16, 2009
Vader, I agree. I should write a post sometime about my thoughts on why Sunstone and Mormon Matter type attempts always fail in their (at least public) goal of dialog and why they always end up overwhelmingly unbelieving.
I have come to the conclusion that it’s a quirk of human nature that I (currently) see no way around.
Agellius
November 16, 2009
Adam and Bruce: You’re right, I overlooked that statement of Bruce’s when I wrote my post.
Bruce Nielson
November 16, 2009
Agellius,
Your point was still pertinent. I particularly liked this line: “This is totally at odds with the nature of the Catholic Church as it perceives and describes itself”
You can’t both be a civic club and keep the point of view you’re a revealed religion. The two are not compatible.
Bruce Nielson
November 16, 2009
“But compared to the other permabloggers there, I was like radical TBM to the max.”
I should have said “But compared to most of the other permabloggers there, I was like radical TBM to the max.” I really wasn’t the only conservative there. But I was probably the “most conservative” there.
The Only True and Living Nathan
November 16, 2009
Another point that needs to be made is that the Catholic Church (like the LDS one) isn’t just “a faith tradition” — it is a discrete organization with a purpose and a mandate. In those terms, it’s ludicrous to conclude that anyone who feels themselves a cultural part of that organization is somehow owed a seat at the table, even if they do not support (and at times actively oppose) said organization’s stated purposes.