Religious warfare

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
John 13:34

The Seattle Times carries a religion column each Saturday, each week's writer rotating among local representatives of the predominant religious faiths.  The columns are usually fairly anodyne, designed to inspire readers to acts of kindness and good works, rather than urging them on to religious warfare, verbal or otherwise.  The Jewish rabbi, in particular, comes across as a humorous and intelligent guy you'd enjoy having as a house guest and visitor at your dinner table.

The Catholic columnist, Fr. Patrick Howell, who had his turn at bat today, is the rector at Seattle University, a Jesuit institution.  He comments today on the Vatican's recent appointment of Seattle's archbishop as its "apostolic delegate" to investigate the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), a coordinating body for American nuns.  Fr. Howell's column is restrained and good natured, although quietly critical of the "investigation," and in it he asks its readers to remember all the good work that nuns have accomplished over the years. He notes that many people, both Catholic and non-Catholic, have been upset over the Vatican's pending investigation.  He summarizes the reasons given for the investigation as follows:

The [reasons] that leap out are that Women Religious has been silent on issues of sexual ethics, such as contraception and gay marriage, and that some of their invited keynote speakers at their national conferences have raised up significant isssues the church still needs to deal with.

By implication, they have focused too much on social justice issues such as homelessness, oppressive political structures, capital punishment, and so forth, without sufficient attention to the doctrinal teachng of the church.  And they should never have raised questions about the ordination of women.

Fr. Howell goes on to speak well of the archbishop, and of the archbishop's conciliatory language in accepting the assignment.  The column concludes with the words, "But the wound has been made," and continues with the hope that the archbishop can help with the healing, and that members of the church will offer their support to the women in religious orders.

Fr. Howell admittedly makes it clear that he personally questions the wisdom of the investigation: "Being called on the carpet for maintaining a respectful silence on controversial issues related to sexual ethics seems particularly inquisitional." But, overall, his column sounds to me like a balanced article, one aimed at Seattle readers in general, not just a Catholic audience.  The writer speaks well of the archbishop, but also praises the work done by the LCRW and its members and expresses his profound hopes that a very large baby not be thrown out with a small amount of bath water (my metaphor, not his).

But the vitriolic on-line comments in response to the column are disheartening.  Very few writers had anything complimentary to say about Fr. Howell's essay.  Roughly half denounced religion in general, often hysterically, and Catholic Christianity in particular.  The other half denounced American nuns, the LCRW, the Jesuit order, Seattle University, and Father Howell himself as betrayers of the One True Faith.  A betrayal that I gather began with the succession to the papacy of John XXIII and that has become increasingly devastating to True Believers over the intervening years.  A sample of these latter comments, by writers who might be called Catholic traditionalists -- an example atypical only because its writer was fairly literate -- reads as follows:

Pride is a perfect example of what the Jesuits produce. Egocentric and selfish. A little bit of education is dangerous. Irritating but not the real problem.

The real problem is that people that took their vows, now see fit to ignore them. Forces that have been trying to destroy the Church use this. When the Pope ask something be done, it the duty of the Church to carry out those Papal Orders.

Too many have wandered and led the faithful astray. The Church was built as a place to come and worship Jesus, not man. We pray to Jesus, not the Nuns, not the priests and certainly not the Jesuits.

My general conclusion is that today's readers bring the same extreme, if heartfelt, positions to religion that they do to politics.  In both religious and political discussion today, Americans -- or at least, the more vocal Americans -- are driven by anger.  This is true of the left and right wing in politics, of atheists and theists, and even between those within the same religious tradition who hold conflicting views about the nature and practice of their faith.

It will be a relief next week to step back and read some calming and good humored remarks on human nature by the local rabbi who serves as the Times's  Jewish correspondent.