There is an importance difference between informed, constructive criticism and insulting, inflammatory critique of personal religious beliefs. In his response to Tim Lesinski's critique of his op?ed regarding contraception and the Catholic Church, John Lapin writes, "I want to make explicit from the start that I have no animosity for anyone who has chosen to find comfort or community in the form of religion." Unfortunately, both his original op?ed, "Get your rosaries off our ovaries," and his response, "Defense of the indefensible," use provocative language to articulate what does feel like animosity to some of us who practice the religion he criticizes.
I must make clear that I agree with Lapin's original, basic argument: Women should have access to birth control, and employers should be required to provide insurance that covers it at no cost, regardless of their religious affiliation. I, too, am shocked that access to contraception actually dominated political discourse in this country in 2012. It is not necessary to repeat the statistics regarding the number of American women, not to mention American Catholic women, who use birth control, statistics that demonstrate how non?controversial birth control truly is in this country.
As Lapin explains in his initial op?ed, a compromise was reached last month that effectively ended the contraception debate in the political sphere; religious institutions will not have to pay directly for the provision of medical services they object to on religious grounds, but insurance companies will be required to cover those costs. Because birth control is preventive health care, this measure saves money, and most everyone walked away satisfied. Everyone, that is, except Catholic bishops - because it is their job to say that artificial birth control is wrong. How can Lapin be surprised that Catholic bishops continue to assert the position that they are required to uphold, since he himself explained this traditional belief? If you want to condemn a group of men, please choose the political leaders who used the bishops in order to legislate their own personal beliefs.
It is at this point - when political debate moved on from contraception to a new controversy - that Lapin failed to understand the difference between participating in legitimate political discourse and writing what can only be described as an insensitive, overly?inflammatory critique of an institution to which millions of Americans belong. There is no doubt that the Church, even subtracting transgressions of centuries past, is responsible for an incalculable amount of pain and suffering. It is struggling, somewhat unsuccessfully (at least if you've been paying attention to my home diocese, Kansas City?St. Joseph) to reform itself. The Church is not above the law, but its leaders may still be coming to terms with that reality.
So yes, we have problems. There is a reason that the second largest "church" in this country is composed of former Catholics. It is my personal belief that women should be allowed to be priests and that gay members of our community should be allowed to be married within the Church. Obviously, not all Catholics feel the same, but it is our right, as members of a religious community, to grapple with these issues ourselves. I don't understand why Lapin claims that the Church is imposing its views on all women, when the compromise negotiated by the Obama administration effectively guaranteed that women will not be denied birth control based on their employer's religious beliefs. As it stands, only Catholic women are affected by the Church's views on birth control, and we choose to be members of the Catholic Church. To suggest otherwise - that we are being oppressed and manipulated and simply ignoring it - is insulting our intelligence.
Lapin's critique paints the Church with one brush, and his main point doesn't seem to be the identification of inequality within the Church (which many before him have done in a much more articulate and much less offensive way), but to demonstrate his own moral and intellectual superiority. If I wanted to be snarky, I would note that Lapin's choice of vocabulary merits a critique once leveled at the Church: that it used language its people couldn't easily understand as a symbol of its own importance.
In his response to Lesinski, Lapin argues in favor of public discourse on religion, stating that we should debate religious beliefs in this country the way we debate political beliefs. I must admit complete shock. Why? What is the purpose of debating other people's faith, their personal, private beliefs? First of all, given the context of the contraception debate, I think it's clear that much of our political discourse is indeed already grounded in religious debate. I realize that Lapin is arguing for a more reasoned, rational exploration of religious beliefs. Again, I ask, "Why?" What is the value of this proposed discourse? Is it to allow Lapin equal opportunity to offend people of all religious backgrounds? If Lapin would really like the chance to learn more about the various religious beliefs Americans hold, I suggest he take a trip over to the religion department. Before he does so, however, he might want to work on using a more neutral and less incendiary tone.
I choose to practice Catholicism, despite the fact that I am not viewed as equal to the men who stand next to me at Mass by Church hierarchy. If Lapin attempted to learn about the reality of being a young, liberal, Catholic woman in 2012, I think he would find a reality very different from his black?and?white depiction. I invite him to Mass at Goddard when he returns to campus.
Ultimately, Lapin's commentary is guilty of the same transgression of which he accuses (perhaps not incorrectly) my Church: treating me like I'm not smart enough to figure this issue out for myself. As Lapin himself has pointed out, almost 100 percent of sexually active American Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives. If the Church is trying to suppress that right, it's certainly not doing a very good job. American Catholic women seem to be figuring birth control out just fine for themselves, without the help of their bishops and certainly without Lapin's help.
If Lapin would like to discuss actual suppression of women's rights, I suggest he start with a real issue very much in the public, political sphere: legislation that mandates medically unnecessary ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion. Here is legislation that treats women like they're too stupid to understand what it means to be pregnant and then attempts to shame them out of getting an abortion. I hope he can discuss the real, tangible consequences of this legislation and refrain from attacking the personal beliefs of others, regardless of whether those values are based in religious teaching.
--
Maura Sunkel is a senior majoring in international relations.
