Thursday, December 11, 2008
Religion as Contract
I was sitting yesterday morning in a review session for one of my law school exams. We were analyzing a hypothetical problem (based on a real-life case) in which a Catholic priest delivers a fire-and-brimstone sermon at the funeral of a young homosexual man who died in a tragic accident. The priest seems to have restated the Catholic Church’s position on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, albeit in rather stark and indelicate terms. The parents then sue the priest for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I don’t want to discuss the legal issues, because I simply don’t know enough about the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech and free exercise of religion) at this point to give an adequate answer. I also don’t want to discuss the priest’s behavior. Rather, I want to discuss the reactions of some of my classmates for what it reveals about their attitude toward religion. Some of them, in order to find the priest liable, analyzed the case not from the perspective of tort law, but of contract law. Their basic argument was that the family had hired the Catholic Church to hold a funeral Mass for their son and that the priest, the Church’s agent, had breached the contract by delivering a sermon critical of their son’s conduct. My classmates, however, failed to make clear what the essential terms of such a contract are. The contract would look something like the following:
“We, the bereaved parents, pay the Church/priest valuable consideration of X in exchange for the service of saying nice things about our son in front of our friends and family at his funeral Mass. Furthermore, the views of the Church with regard to our son’s conduct are irrelevant and therefore not to be mentioned.”
I find such a contract, and the underlying view of religion, disturbing for two reasons. First, this contract reduces religion to a matter of mere personal choice. Joining the Church (or any other religion, for that matter) has no ontological effect on the individual which would make leaving problematic. Baptism, in this scheme, means just getting wet, and Confirmation is just getting some nasty oil rubbed on one’s forehead.
Second, according to this contract, the Church has absolutely no right to speak on important moral issues. If a member of the Church says he disagrees with certain teachings, no priest could present the Church’s teaching in a forceful manner for fear of a lawsuit. At the same time, the Church would be required to be at the beck and call of all her members. The Church bears all the obligations of the contract, and the individual member bears none.
I think the root problem of this “contractual” view of religion is that it doesn’t even rise to the level of a real contract. Any other contract this one-sided would be voided by a court for unconscionability. The individual demands complete autonomy and freedom, and the Church is told to recognize that. The Church cannot demand anything of the individual, but the individual can demand everything of the church.
Even a real contract, however, between man and Church/God would not be enough. The ancient Romans were said to regard religion as a matter of do ut des: I give so that you give. This at least is a contract; both sides are required to do something for the other party. Such an attitude, though, should strike any Catholic as somehow vulgar, at the very least. Who am I to demand anything from God, if He made me? Can I take Him to court if He doesn’t perform as I expect?
Such a contractual view of religion appears even in the Old Testament, in some misguided understandings of covenant, and still crops up today. It is for some reason extremely hard to avoid. I am referring to the so-called Deuteronomic theory of history, which views all evil as a direct punishment from God for failing to live up to the terms of the covenant. This theory was refuted first in the Book of Job, and later in the death of Jesus. Jesus taught that the sun rises for the just as well as the unjust man. Loving God in this life must be something more than a mere contractual duty, because God makes no guarantee that life will go as we wish, if we love Him.
Some may raise the objection that belief in the afterlife is merely a postponed performance. Yes, it is true that we believe that evil cannot conquer forever. However, the proper response is that we are to love God for His own sake, and not for our sake.
Anyway, I’ve gone on longer than I meant to. Just a few thoughts on contractual views of religion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Steve, I think you're right on, both in pointing out that Christianity cannot really be understood as a contract, and that even those who pretend to do so have a very lop-sided view of what that contract should look like.
I am always surprised by those who think that "cafeteria" Catholicism is a logically viable option. I can pick and choose which part of the Republican platform I like because the Republican party, though it claims these are pretty darn good positions, does not claim absolute truth (nor, therefore, absolute loyalty). Even a philosophy like Plato - whose thoughts we might loosely call "natural religion" - does not claim to have all the answers.
But the Catholic church does claim to have all the answers, or at least all the important ones. And not because its leaders are clever or insightful - some are, some are not - but because God Himself has entrusted these truths to the Church. If that is indeed the case, this is a cause for much rejoicing and anyone who understands this reality must surely enter the Church. But if this is not the case, the Church is blaspheming God, violating the Second Commandment by placing God's name upon mere human teaching. Why would you want to belong to a church that committed such a grave error? Like Lewis' argument for Christ' divinity in Mere Christianity, the middle ground is logically denied.
(Incidentally, it is along this line of thinking that I am forced to condemn the Mormon church - if not necessarily all its members - in fairly strong terms. I know a good many Mormons and respect many of them for their commitment to their families and their desire to love and serve God. But their church does not simply claim to embody some good teachings; they claim Jesus literally came to the New World, appeared to and appointed Joseph Smith, and continues to speak through Thomas S. Monson. Either Monson is "president, prophet, seer and revelator" or he's not. But you can't join his church and then complain when he says he has a message from God.)
A non-contractual view of religion is a very high call, a great challenge. Perhaps, being just humans, we need both? After all, at least in the Baltimore catechism's theory, there were two types of contrition, imperfect and perfect. Imperfect was sorrow out of fear of punishment, rather a contractual view (not strictly so, in a legal sense, but still the idea of breach and damages if nonperformance). Perfect, of course, was sorrow because one had offended God whom one loved. Both were sufficient for absolution, though imperfect contrition, if I remember, would land you in purgatory for a number of years, to bring you finally up to the level of perfection, which was ultimately what is necessary.
First of all, great blog. It's actually regularly updated!
Steve, well-thought and thoughtful thoughts, as always. But I have one question that I think can shed light on something important. Why is it obvious that this sermon was inappropriate? I assume that we all deem the sermon inappropriate in such a context, regardless of our beliefs about homosexuality.
While "cafeteria" Catholicism is not a logical or full participation in the faith, I think that it's dangerous to hold up complete submission to a religion as something good. I choose not to be Catholic because I know I don't fully understand/believe certain tenants of the faith, but I also respect people who are born into the faith and love it but personally struggle with accepting certain doctrine. People find faith for different reasons. And this is natural. Religion is certainly no contract. Even the Deuteronomic notion of God punishing us for violating His law is not really a contractual notion. It's more like just the way it his; He's the boss and you better behave. Not much contractual freedom about it.
Anyway, back to that fire-and-brimstone priest...
Isn't it natural for any normal person to have a negative reaction to a priest giving a chastising sermon about homosexuality at the funeral of a homosexual person? Putting aside religious doctrine and contractual law, isn't there a higher code of decency... call it a moral compass... call it society... call it love or mercy... that tells us it's wrong to shout about a person's sins (if, in this case, we consider homosexual actions to be sinful)?
An finally, perhaps there is a tacit societal contract regarding behavior at important social/spiritual events like funerals. That's my two cents. But kudos for jumping into a controversial and difficult topic! Hope law school is treating you well.
On Wednesday I'll be transferring planes in Chicago. I'll give you a call.
Thanks for the comments, everybody. Let me try to respond as well as I can.
Aaron, that's part of what I was trying to get at. The loyalty you are speaking of is something beyond mere contract, and is the very essence of religion. GK Chesterton, I believe near the beginning of "Orthodoxy," talks about this fundamental loyalty to the world and God. He makes clear that he doesn't mean some sentimental optimism, but absolute loyalty.
Therese, you make a good point too. What I've written about how mere contract is not enough should not scare people off from believing. I think it might be best to describe contract (or imperfect contrition, in your example) as a stage most of us have to pass through to get to absolute loyalty (or perfect contrition).
And, John, thanks especially for your comments. First, you seem to think that the Deuteronomic view of history is purely one-sided. However, in the past month I read a review of a play in which Orthodox Jews at a Nazi concentration camp put God on trial for breaking his "contract" with them. They obviously did not see their arrangement with God as one-sided. Incidentally, such a view of history is not necessarily limited to Jews; I think there are some more "evangelical" Christians out there who espouse essentially the same view.
Second, I was going to add something about belief in the afterlife but thought it best to stop where I did. So, I'll say what I wanted to say now. At a Catholic funeral the priest and the congregation are there to pray for the deceased. Nowadays, the tendency is to make the funeral into a celebration of the person's life. There's room for that elsewhere and at some other time, but not at the funeral Mass. Many of the people in my class were shocked primarily at the Church's teaching that homosexual acts are a sin. That said, like you, I'm not sure that it was proper for the priest to go on a tirade. It probably would have been best for him to speak in general terms about sin and the need for redemption in Jesus Christ. Your suggestion that mercy dictates in this situation is probably correct. The ancient rule, after all, is "De mortuis nil nisi bonum." There must be a reason for it. Interestingly, the Church can choose to deny Christian burial to a public sinner, but does not do so, except in the most egregious cases of public scandal. She then leaves the rest to God.
Finally, I think you need to distinguish between complete obedience/loyalty to God and to the human ministers of God. It is lawful--and sometimes even obligatory--to criticize a human minister because he has not lived up to his loyalty to God. Hopefully, I only ever criticize something the Church does from the perspective of the faith.
Post a Comment