The Roman Catholic Church has recently suffered from another round of revelations regarding clerical rapists and institutional cover-ups. Notably, evidence has surfaced of Pope Benedict XVI's role in the protection of these priests while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Some people have been rightly disturbed by this, and as a result Dominic Mhiripiri '12 wrote a column ("Of scandals, religion and forbidden sex," Apr. 8) distancing other sects of Christianity from the Catholic church's public-relation problems.
I understand why anyone would want to distance himself or herself from Catholicism, but I don't entirely get why this recent wave is such an issue. Obviously, this is the first time the Vatican's big cheese has been involved, but it certainly wasn't unexpected. However, in the grand scheme of things, this is not a major ethical blemish for the Catholic Church. After all, this is merely the rape and physical abuse of hundreds of children.
Please don't think that I'm being insincere and understating what has happened for some rhetorical effect. I am quite serious.
Suppose that the University employed a number of rapists, who were systematically moved from department to department to try to cover up the abuse of undergrads. That would certainly be a major issue for Brown — a massive blemish on its record. But we're talking about the Catholic Church, an organization with a dubious ethical record. As one commentator said, this is like Al Capone finally getting sent to jail for tax evasion instead of bootlegging or murder.
Even ignoring historical abuses like inquisitions, crusades and its close relation to fascism, this abuse pales in comparison with the harm caused by other church policies. Two million people died of AIDS-related causes in 2008, and almost three million people contracted HIV. At the same time, the church hampers efforts in preventing the virus's spread. According to Paul VI's encyclical, "Humanae Vitae," the use of contraceptives is verboten. Condoms, in addition to greatly reducing the risk of transmitting HIV, prevent pregnancies, so they're a big no-no for the Catholic Church. After all, if priests can abstain from sex (cf. sexual abuse scandals), so can people likely to get infected.
Not only does the Catholic Church disregard the well-being of the millions they put at risk with their prohibition, they actively campaign against their use. During Benedict XVI's 2009 trip to Africa, where roughly two-thirds of all people infected with HIV live, the Supreme Pontiff made the outlandish claim that condoms might make the AIDS epidemic worse.
Obviously, the international abuse of countless children at the hands of Catholic clerics is bad, but I do have to give them credit for at least not killing the children. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is responsible for death on a massive scale in other parts of the world. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the AIDS epidemic or even for all cases of unsafe sex — they are not. Nonetheless, this does not excuse them for responsibility in the death of anyone who contracted HIV after being told by the church to avoid proper protection. As terrible as the sexual and physical abuses might be, causing the death of many more people is far worse.
This brings me back to Mhiripiri, who wishes to distance his religion from Catholicism and its "virgin" priests. Despite doctrinal differences — and presumably fewer rapists in cassocks — his religion suffers from the same fundamental ethical issue. As the famous but apocryphal Dostoyevsky quote goes, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." In reality, the opposite is true. If gods are allowed to dictate morality and ethics, you can justify anything you want.
The Catholic Church's stance on contraceptives does not come from a careful analysis of their benefits and detriments. Its policy of covering up child abuse does not come from considering the best interests of victims. They are in place because that's what the Church thinks its god wants. The same goes for any religion that claims its ethical declarations come from gods — including Mhiripiri's religion.
It is permissible to kill a police officer because some god wants us to bring on the End Times. It is permissible to take this land because some other god promised it to us. It is permissible to execute homosexuals because another god doesn't like them. Anyone who believes he or she is in contact with a god that dictates morality is able to claim anything he or she wants. When has an imaginary friend ever said no?
It is essential that any ethical system be based on reality. Most people will be restrained by their human morality from coming to the previous ethical conclusions, but ultimately any ethical system based on fantasy suffers the same fundamental problem.
David Sheffield '11 is a math-physics major from New Jersey, who recieves ethical guidance from Sutekh. He can be reached at david_sheffield@brown.edu
