Custom Religion
by Jorge Vargas
Throughout the West, people are complaining that the world’s organized religions are simply not changing with the times. The Roman Catholic Church has been at the heart of this criticism, in large part due to the Vatican’s stance on divorce, marriage between homosexuals, cloning, and abortion, amongst other issues.
Setting aside the spiritual, religion is a method by which societies are maintained under a certain set of norms, and by which some cultural values are expanded and maintained. Within one society, that's a pretty simple thing to do. Taoism, for instance, is a dominant spiritual belief in Japan and, truly, only in Japan. Roman Catholicism is a dominant spiritual belief in Italy, Spain, Poland, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, France, Ireland, Belgium, Portugal, Canada, Mexico, and the list goes on to encompass just over a billion people who make up dominant proportions in nearly three dozen countries spread across America, Europe, and Africa. And, particularly in Africa, the number of newly baptized adults keeps on growing.
Not to exaggerate - simply to make the point hit home - Roman Catholicism is the largest religion in the Christian nations and despite recent numerical surges for some of the Protestant sects, Roman Catholicism does not seem to be going away any time soon. Like it or not. And, of course, the Holy See is the oldest political system in the Western world.
Of course, there remain those who wish to see change - and this is a notable thing since change can sometimes be a good thing. They want to see the Church change policies held since its inception or which are founded in the arguments found in the Western classic of classics: the Bible. Yes, homosexuals deserve fairer treatment in some matters, although the 'gay marriage' question is one in which I will not venture an opinion as of yet. And, yes, divorce should not be vilified. And, quite naturally, human genome research might be beneficial to find cures, while abortion is sometimes necessary. Does this mean that because some people in the West have extreme opinions on the topic, the world's Catholics need to have their dogma changed?
Different societies have changed in different ways and at different times due to different circumstances - and if the word 'different' is sounding repetitive, it is not because of a lack of vocabulary on the part of this writer but to make sure that the word hits home. The United States isolated itself in the 1910s and 1920s from the rest of the world, just at the critical moment when football – 'soccer' in the US – was becoming the most popular sport in Europe and Latin America, which explains why that sport did not gain prominence in the US for several years. Chivalry was a major part of European society during the early years of colonization which explains why there is such a strong male dominance in most of the Americas, Africa, and Europe, whereas, in isolated villages of Asia, women are actually dominant.
The Christian nations do have some things in common, most of which are norms and mores that were adopted during the European colonization, but there are a variety of cultural facts that they do not have in common. The United States, for instance, is highly Europeanized in several aspects whereas nations like Mexico and Peru are not, due to the heavy indigenous influence on the cultural construct of these nations. Furthermore, poverty, illiteracy, poor healthcare, corrupt governance, war and a variety of other similar factors have also helped create substantial cultural differences amongst Christian nations.
Returning to the 'gay marriage' question, one can look at Spain as an example of a culture that is ready for such a major decision. Spain recently legalized homosexual civil unions. The United States, which many consider to be a very socially conscientious nation - to avoid the term 'advanced' - still seems to be years away from such a momentous decision. And some nations in Latin America, such as the nations of Central America, along with some nations in Africa, are, at least, decades away from embracing something like that. This, again, is not a question of progressive versus backward, although some try to turn it into that, but rather into a society being ready to tackle such a decision without major dissent.
What does the Vatican have to do with same-sex civil unions in Nicaragua? Everything. The Roman Catholic Church has long since argued that such a civil union would go against morality and Christianity and so forth and it is responsible for current attitudes toward such a possibility in the Western nations - note, however, that such an attitude would most likely have arisen anyhow since non-Christian nations have the same opposition to such a civil union. If the Roman Catholic Church to change and accept such a civil union, those individuals throughout societies that are not yet willing to take such a step would suddenly find themselves disenfranchised and the Vatican would find itself dominated by a tyranny of the few, by an oligarchy of - as always - Western Europeans.
And the same would be the case for a variety of other Vatican positions that so many complain about without ever realizing that the Holy See is an international organization like the United Nations and which responds to global moods through a religious lens. It is simultaneously universal and provincial. And it can not be judged by rights and wrongs.
It is true that some individuals believe that not allowing abortions is wrong, but can they honestly force that opinion on a global entity, even if their entire country is in agreement? Of course not.
So before we ask a centuries' old organization with a global constituency to change because it does not agree with our own provincial mindsets - no matter how in vogue those mindsets might be - let us first change ourselves by accepting that we do not get to decide the universal rights and wrongs. That's what the classic of classics is for.
