Speaking Out

No, everything is all about me!
John Robson
The Ottawa Citizen - August 6, 2003

If I were to style myself a columnist while never writing a column, my claim would be derided. Especially in payroll. But people seem free to say they're Roman Catholics without following that silly old Pope. Our newspaper must be behind the times.

Paul Martin isn't. He just said "I am a practising Catholic and I have responsibilities as a legislator and those responsibilities must take in a wider perspective." If you suddenly realize your religion is too narrow I sympathize. But shouldn't you logically seek a broader one?

As Father Raymond J. De Souza just said, the essence of the recent Vatican message on politicians and gay marriage is: "You can't believe two contradictory things at the same time." You can't believe the Pope babbles nonsense and presides over a hateful, outdated institution and that you are a Catholic (the capital "C" indicating Roman Catholic, as usual).

You can believe either or, like myself, neither. (Though I myself find many of the Church's teachings persuasive and others interesting, I do not assent to the entire Creed so I do not call myself a Catholic, go to their churches or take their communion.) But there is a moral obligation not to believe both because they can't both be true. Or rather, there once was.

Part of the modern creed is that one can, indeed, believe contradictory things if one feels like it. One can do anything one feels like. I have previously cited the joke about the guy who sees a nude woman in every ink blot but, when his psychiatrist suggests he's sexually obsessed, says "Hey, doc, you're the one showing all the dirty pictures." We live in an era devoted to the Rabelesian motto "Do what thou wilt" and, it seems, we see it in every ink blot.

For instance that kid whose parents sued a judo federation because they thought bowing on entering the dojo was idolatrous. In days of yore you could take judo or not, but couldn't insist on taking the judo where they don't bow because there wasn't one. Similarly, you could stick bits of metal through your face or not, but couldn't insist on the right to "express yourself" by mutilating your clothes and person then take umbrage when some prospective employer reacted to the obvious message with ye horror. Not any more.

The United States Supreme Court even found "Do what thou wilt" in the unlikely venue of the United States Constitution. In Casey v. Pennsylvania, a 1992 ruling that would have startled George Washington and scared John Adams, it said, "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." This passage was recently castigated by Justice Antonin Scalia as "the passage that ate the rule of law." I agree. But see it wanted to eat the rule of law and so...

That line of reasoning has a hearty appetite on this side of the border as well. The Globe and Mail just editorialized that "the Vatican's insistence that politicians put their religion first in determining public policy on the question is beyond the pale. It is an unacceptable proposition outside a theocracy. It's certainly a non-starter in Canada ..." We all want politicians to follow their consciences not the polls. But is it obvious that the conscience itself should invariably say only "Do what thou wilt"?

It is true, and commendably, that in Canada no one is obliged to belong to any church against their will nor to support any church financially. But the Catholic hierarchy still seem to think that although you can join their church or not, they have the right to define the conditions of membership.

This opinion is so incongruous today that when Calgary's bishop Fred Henry said the prime minister was endangering his soul over gay marriage, one gay activist said "I think the bishop has eaten too much mad cow." And the Globe reports that "Liberal leadership candidate Sheila Copps, who is a Roman Catholic, called Bishop Henry's remarks appalling and excessive. Campaigning in Edmonton yesterday, the Heritage Minister, who supports same-sex marriage, said she disagrees with the Vatican over such issues as the role of women and birth control."

Can anyone recall a senior politician declaring themselves a Catholic in order to say that they do endorse some important aspect of Church doctrine? Perhaps reporters don't ask. But couldn't Ms. Copps, or Mr. Martin, or the prime minister, come forward and say what important pieces of Catholic teaching they believe in? Or failing that, leave the Church on ... what's that P word? Preposterous? Personal dignity? Protestantism? I know I had it written down here somewhere.

Of course if you can find "Do what thou wilt" in the catechism of the Catholic church you can probably find it anywhere. I'm still poring over my terms of employment.

John Robson is Senior Editorial Writer and Columnist.
Listen to him on CFRA 580 AM Fridays from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.

© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen