In a post Ross Douthaut called The AIDS Libel, he employs some dubious rhetoric in defense of the church’s insistence on abstinence, vice condoms, in the face of an African epidemic. First he demands proof that African Catholics have higher infection rates. OK, to save time, I’ll give him that one. But not this one:
…consider that Benedict XVI is the head of an international institution that does as much to fight disease and poverty as any NGO in the world. The Church runs hospitals, clinics, and schools; it channels hundred of millions of dollars in donations from the developed world to the wretched of the earth; it supports thousands upon thousands of priests, nuns and laypeople who work in some of the most difficult and dangerous conditions in the world. And it does so based on the same premises—an attempt to be faithful to the commandments of Jesus Christ—that undergird the Pope’s insistence on preaching chastity, rather than promoting prophylactics. There are many other NGOs working in Africa that proceed from different premises, and take a different attitude toward matters sexual as a result, and if David Rothkopf prefers their approach that’s perfectly understandable. But unless he’s willing to tell the Catholic Church that it should fold up its charitable operations in the developing world and go home, I’d prefer to be spared the lectures on how the Pope is responsible for “massive death and suffering” among populations for whom Catholic institutions have provided lifelines beyond counting over the years, just because he isn’t willing to to use his pulpit to preach the importance of playing it as safe as possible, health-wise, while you’re committing what the Church considers mortal sin.
Let’s begin with this: Where does the church get the bazillions it dispenses as largesse around the world? From individuals and from the incredible wealth it’s amassed over time based on its influence. It didn’t earn that money; it was given that money. And that bankroll rightly belongs to the world and should be spent there.
When the Pope gives up his mansions and jewel encrusted hand towels, I’ll be impressed with his munificence. The church has a duty to the world to do the good it does. That’s why we give it money (tax exemption, anyone?). To make the world better.
Next: Because the Catholic Church conducts large scale charity, it cannot be criticized?
It reminds me of the colonialist apologia that goes something like: “Sure, we’ll apologize for our supposed imperialism in the Third World. Then we’ll apologize for building all the roads and schools, etc. etc.” Please. You steal my car then expect praise for getting the oil changed regularly? Why not argue that the church can’t be criticized for the pedophilia it blighted the Earth with, while doing all that charity work, unless we’re willing to ask them to take their ball and go home.
Douthaut should have stuck to his first tactic. He can buy himself a lot of time while his critics gather these unnecessary statistics; it’s a first year debate trick but you can keep a straight face going there in this case (what if you’re not an African Catholic but the only hospital for miles around is and refuses to give out condoms lest you commit a mortal sin?). But the argument that the Church can’t be criticized without a simultaneous refusal of its largesse just won’t fly. That’s all our money; Benedict is just its steward.
