.-
New York Times writer Ross Douthat has defended Catholic theological
and moral teachings, in a series of articles explaining how the Church
is not “fundamentalist” but simply “orthodox.”
“What I describe as 'Christian orthodoxy' is not identical to
everything that calls itself conservative Christianity in the United
States, and it’s certainly not identical to Christian fundamentalism,”
wrote Douthat, a Catholic convert known for his conservative social and
political outlook, in an April 16-19 online exchange with Slate magazine
author William Saletan.
In his new book “Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics”
(Free Press, $26.00) Douthat advocates a return to authentic Christian
traditions and doctrines. He argues that distorted forms of religion,
focused on self-gratification and worldly aims, threaten the country's
common good.
In his exchange with Saletan, Douthat defended Catholic teachings on
subjects like sexuality and marriage, while urging secularists and
skeptics to rethink their identification of traditional Christianity
with “fundamentalism.”
The Catholic columnist pointed out that Biblical “fundamentalism” is
actually a modern phenomenon, originating in the 19th and 20th
centuries. By contrast, Christian orthodoxy “is an ancient thing, dating
back to the early centuries A.D., when Christian doctrine was first
codified.”
While Christian orthodoxy accepts Scripture as inspired by God, it
does not employ it for inappropriate purposes – such as predicting the
end of the world, ruling out scientific discoveries, or interpreting
natural disasters as forms of divine retribution.
After distinguishing authentic Christian faith from “fundamentalism,”
Douthat went on to defend Catholics teachings on subjects like
contraception and homosexuality – which were also prohibited by most
other Christian groups until the 20th century.
The New York Times columnist observed that the Church's view of
sexuality does not come from a select few verses of the Bible, but “is
rooted in the entirety of the biblical narrative, from the creation
story in Genesis down through Jesus’ words in the New Testament.”
While this vision of human life does not reduce sexuality to biology,
it does mark out the purposes of sex within God's plan for creation –
including “the reunification of the two equal-but-different halves of
humanity … and the begetting of children within a context that’s
intended be a kind of microcosm of humanity as a whole.”
“This narrative of one-flesh complementarity,” Douthat told Saletan,
“explains why Christians have traditionally rejected both the sexual
authoritarianism inherent in polygamy and the sexual individualism
that’s become such a powerful force in our society today – and why
they’ve refused to bless homosexual relationships as well.”
Douthat also urged Saletan, and others who dismiss the Church's
teachings on sexuality, to take an honest look at the consequences of
contraception.
“The world that contraception has made is a world that de-emphasizes
the moral weight of the sexual act, while insisting on the centrality of
a perpetually-fulfilled libido to human contentment,” he observed.
Contraception, he said, has created a world “characterized by
steadily declining marriage rates, steadily rising numbers of children
born out of wedlock, birthrates that have fallen well below replacement
levels across the developed West … and millions upon millions upon
millions of abortions.”
“In general, the sexual culture that contraception has created is a
culture that treats the stuff of human life and even life itself as a
commodity to be bought, sold, mass produced, experimented upon and kept
on ice when necessary.”
In his final installment, Douthat thanked the religiously-skeptical
Saletan for his respectful tone. But he critiqued the Slate author's
liberal viewpoint, for its unconscious reliance on principles drawn from
the faith it rejects.
“When I look at your secular liberalism, I see a system of thought
that looks rather like a Christian heresy, and not necessarily a
particularly coherent one at that,” Douthat remarked.
He suggested that modern liberalism had drawn its most coherent
ideas, such as its narrative of historical progress and its concept of
universal human rights, from a “Christian intellectual inheritance.” But
liberalism cast off other aspects of the Christian vision that would
have kept these goals in balance and perspective.
Today, Douthat said, secular liberalism goes forth with “moral
fervor,” while denying “the revelation that once justified that fervor
in the first place.”
“It insists that it is a purely secular and scientific enterprise
even as it grounds its politics in metaphysical claims,” he pointed out,
noting that a reader “will not find the principle of absolute human
equality in evolutionary theory, or universal human rights anywhere in
physics.”
Douthat posed a question to secular critics who believe “that
Christian teachings on homosexuality do violence to gay people’s equal
dignity.”
“If the world is just matter in motion, whence comes this dignity?
What justifies and sustains it? Why should I grant it such intense,
almost supernatural respect?”
In his first reply to Saletan, Douthat described “Bad Religion” as a
book inviting nonbelievers “to put an ear to the church door, you might
say, even if they don’t actually step inside.”
At the series' close, the Catholic columnist reaffirmed his desire to
help skeptics take a sympathetic look at Christian orthodoxy.
“I’d invite you to glance back over your shoulder at the worldview
that so many liberals have left behind,” he told Saletan, “and to
consider the possibility that … it might still provide a better home for
humankind than whatever destination our civilization is headed for.”
