I haven’t seen this story around much. And it seems like it ought to be all over the news… or at least, all over the atheosphere. So you know what they say. When you don’t like the news, go out and write some of your own.
This is not that story.
This, if you can believe it, is the even more fucked-up follow-up.
Father Geoffrey Farrow, now out of work, had applied for a position at an interfaith anti-poverty organization, CLUE, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice… an application process that was moving forward.
(An anti-poverty organization. That’s important. File it away.)
CLUE gets a significant amount of its funding from the Catholic Church.
Who told CLUE that their Church funding would be withdrawn if they hired Father Farrow.
The full story is on the Bilerico Project and at Pam’s House Blend.
So. Just to clarify.
The Catholic Church’s position on this matter is this:
It is more important to punish a former priest for speaking out in favor of same-sex marriage, than it is to help the poor.
Or, perhaps, more to the point:
It is more important to spitefully and maliciously block the career of a former priest who dared to defy the Church and speak out against it — not just to fire him, but to actively get in the way of him being hired elsewhere — than it is to help the poor.
A lot, that’s how many. Exactly a lot.
And how many times in the Gospels is Jesus recorded as saying that it’s important to ban same-sex marriage? Or that it’s important for the church to be pissily vengeful when its priests follow their own conscience instead of obeying the Pharisees — excuse me, the bishops of the Church?
Zero times, that’s how many. Exactly zero. I counted.
Now. Granted, the Jesus character in the Gospels is one of the most complicated and self- contradictory figures in all of fiction. Many of his teachings are muddled and inconsistent, and it’s a bit churlish of us atheists to expect consistency from people who claim to follow them.
But on this one, the Jesus character is pretty clear. Helping the poor — central, oft- repeated tenet of the teachings. Banning same sex marriage — zilch. Doesn’t seem to be an issue. And pissy vengefulness — heck, he’s actually against that. What with the whole “turning the other cheek” thing and all.
And on this one, I’ve gotta side with the Jesus character. Totally setting aside the whole “gross, self-serving hypocrisy versus having some semblance of integrity about what you claim to be your own values” thing, purely on the merits of the actual question itself… yup, I’ve gotta go with this Jesus figure. Helping the poor — better and more important than hateful homophobic vindictiveness. Check.
And later in that same interview:
“Of course people accuse us sometimes of not practising what we preach, but you must remember that if you’re trying to propogate a creed of poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful, authoritarian organisation to do it.”
Well put, Vice-Pope Eric. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Supporting an interfaith anti- poverty organization on the one hand. Rabid hostility to same-sex marriage, and ham-handed control-freak spitefulness towards a former employee who publicly defied them, on the other. Which did you think the Catholic Church was going to go with?
Oh, btw: If you feel like raising a squawk, you can do so at:
Archdiocese of Los Angeles
3424 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2202
213 637 7000
[email protected]
I don’t come out in support of the Jesus character often, but on this one, I’m agreed with you and with him.
This really pisses me off. When pharmacists are compelled to do their jobs (ie. supplying birth control) or laws are changed to allow stem cell research despite religious objections, or when catholic hospitals are criticised for failing to provide services that contradict their beliefs, or when the law compels adoption agencies, relationship counsellors, or marriage registrars to deal with homosexual couples, or indeed when any matter applying to society is conducted in a manner that is less than 100% accommodating to their superstitious crap, Catholics are normally the first to start vociferously complaining about how we (secularist bigots that we are) are failing to allow them their freedom of conscience.
Yet when it comes to individual Catholics disagreeing with The Mother Church, suddenly this enthusiasm for ‘freedom of conscience’ seems to evaporate. Stories like the one above, and this one about catholics who support abortion rights, make it clear that (in the eyes of the church) there is no such thing as individual freedom of conscience, only freedom to have their views fed to them by the Vatican.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking
It’s times like this that I’m proud to be an apostate.
I’ll add this one to my e’er growing list of reasons I’m glad I’m not Catholic anymore. Yeesh.
Seems to me that Father Farrow is a lot more like Jesus (the good one depicted in this post) than his leaders are. Father Farrow had compassion for gays and for the poor; his leaders apparently have little or no compassion for either group. Wait, I’ll amend that last statement: his leaders have conditional compassion for the poor, as long as they swallow what the Church is squirting down their throats (and don’t accept help from a gay-friendly priest).
I’m afraid it’s difficult for me to muster much sympathy for Father Farrow. He willing joined and supported a hypocritical, corrupt and authoritarian organization that is grossly out of touch with reality. And if you’re thinking that he became a priest only with the most noble motive, to help other people, that won’t wash. He could have done that with any number of other religious or non-religious organizations, but he deliberately and carefully chose the Roman Catholic Church, knowing full well what he was getting into.