Secular Sanity

Archbishop John Nienstedt is making dogmatic claims about the morality of, and family
complicity in, homosexual relationships. Since this is causing considerable mental anguish among his followers and/or their families, and is an issue affecting all of society, it is appropriate to question those claims.
Basic Moral Premise #1: Moral people don’t go around hurting others. However, it’s apparently OK when religious beliefs are involved. This seems to be Nienstedt’s position, and it has a long history among authoritarian religions. Ancient Aztecs threw virgins into volcanoes to appease their god. Ancient Hebrews sacrificed their firstborn sons to Yahweh (at least early in their history). Today, Christian Scientists let their kids die by substituting prayer for medical care. Muslim suicide bombers eagerly kill thousands in sending themselves off into what they think are the arms of 72 virgins in Paradise. Japanese Kamikaze in World War II did similar suicide missions for their emperor-god. Routinely, worldwide and throughout history, women are abused and killed in many ways for many reasons having to do with religious views of what is moral.

Basic Moral Premise #2: Sexual behavior becomes immoral only when it hurts someone—when it betrays a trust, is coercive in some way, exploits vulnerable persons, irresponsibly causes a harmful pregnancy, knowingly passes on a disease, etc. These are all too common and deserve social condemnation.

Basic Moral Premise #3: It is gravely immoral to harm people (through restrictive laws, social practices and religious condemnations) for engaging in mature, loving, responsible, non-harmful sexual relationships, regardless of gender. There is no rational justification possible for such condemnation.

Basic Moral Premise #4: It is true that it is morally wrong to be complicit in immoral behavior. For that reason, Catholics, especially GLBT Catholics, make a grave error in continuing to support the Catholic Church and its transparently immoral teachings. If they have any moral obligation at all to the Church, it is to leave, and the sooner the better.

If Archbishop Nienstedt insists that the Catholic Church’s position on sexuality should be the socially (and even legally) preferred standard of morality, he has an obligation to produce evidence to support that position. However, the fact is, there is no evidence—not in history, not in philosophy, not even in the Bible. All one can find are myths and legends at best, and power-mongering fakery at worst. Even the claim that there is a god is devoid of supporting evidence. Religious dogma is a thin strand indeed on which to hang a claim of moral authority. A humanistic, secular standard based on not hurting people is far more reliable, rational, just and compassionate.

2 Comments »