Why the Church should not be considered a moral authority
This is an essay I first wrote in 2012, during the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act through the UK Parliament. I’m reproducing it here because it remains relevant anytime someone speaks with moral authority.
Morals from above
While I have a great deal of respect for a number of the Church’s leaders (many of whom are tireless advocates for human rights and social welfare around the world), the unfortunate truth is that the Church’s leadership should never be assumed to be inherently right on ethical matters, and we should treat what they preach with a healthy dose of scepticism.
This is not something I argue from an anti-religion point of view: in fact, a lot of practicing Christians would (to varying degrees) agree with me. For example, 60% of Catholics in the US “believe that the Catholic Church should focus more on social justice and the obligation to help the poor, even if it means focusing less on issues like abortion and the right to life” ; and the existence of organisations such as Catholics for Choice demonstrates just how strongly opposed to its doctrines some members of its congregation are.
Similarly, within the Anglican Church there is of course much debate over a great many ethical issues. Contrast John Sentamu’s views on gay marriage (which I will return to below) with those of the always excellent Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has been highly critical of the Church’s attitudes towards homosexuality:
“I must imagine that God is weeping, and the world quite rightly should dismiss the Church in those cases as being totally irrelevant.”
In short, a great many practicing Christians (including those in leadership positions) also disagree with the moral priorities and teachings of their own Church — and for good reason.
Fire and brimstone
The reality is that when church leaders engage in moral debate, they frequently do so with charged and misleading language, vague assumptions (often false) disguised as facts, and a fiery, righteous tone — all of which distract from and distort the kind of thoughtful ethical and scientific debates which should form the basis of decision making in a developed and democratic society such as Britain’s. Given this, I believe that all moral, thinking people (both religious and otherwise) have a duty to reject such rhetorical nonsense in favour of reason and justice.
To argue my point, and to highlight the kind of misinformation the Church frequently dispenses, I’m going to examine John Sentamu’s arguments against equal marriage. I don’t choose Sentamu because I view him as an extreme example in this regard (in fact, by the standards of many he is a champion for gay rights); it just so happens that he has outlined his position in some detail, and that his arguments are typical of the wider Church, so his comments are a good subject for this discussion.
Sentamu on Equal Marriage
John Sentamu is clearly a caring, well intentioned person. He has worked hard to promote human rights and equality in a number of countries (including the rights of rights of gay people in Uganda). However, on the subject of marriage he has consistently argued that gay men and women should be denied the rights of other couples who wish to marry or start a family — not because his arguments stand up to any robust reasoning (they don’t), but because his views have been biased by antiquated traditions. Despite having faced racial discrimination himself, his religious morals blind him to the ways in which he now discriminates in the same way.
(To avoid generalising the whole Church in this regard, contrast Sentamu’s position with that of Desmond Tutu: “To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as apartheid ever was.”)
So, why discriminate?
Sentamu sets out a detailed response here to criticism of an earlier interview in the Daily Telegraph in which he stated that:
“We must not torture the English language. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and that’s marriage.”
While it’s not clear to me why redefining a discriminatory institution in order to be more inclusive should be considered ‘torturing’ the English language (or why the continuity of the language should take precedence over the wellbeing of actual, living people), I’ll pass over the odd turn of phrase to focus on the Archbishop’s arguments in favour of this position. Why should he, as a man of God, reject the right of gay couples to marry?
Let’s start by seeing how Sentamu defines marriage:
“I believe that marriage is the bedrock of society. It is a gift from God in Creation. It has a public element, a public commitment made to one another and to the community. For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. Already in marriage, there are the ingredients of stability that children are looking for.”
This sounds reasonable to me: a commitment that two people make to each other, to look after each other, and to remain together; a sound foundation for a family. I can’t argue with that. So why, then, should ‘moral’ people deny gay couples this happy institution?
Sentamu breaks up his argument into 5 sections (on: civil partnerships; the legal background; the social institution; “valuing difference”; and a section vacuously entitled “A unique mystery”). Problematically, much of the content merely serves as background noise to the moral argument: for example, the law is no guarantee of moral right, so why spend so much time reviewing the current legislation which can (and should, in cases of injustice) be changed by Parliament? It only distracts from the ethical arguments, so let us instead focus on those.
Tradition
One of the simplest (and most erroneous) arguments invoked in favor of a moral position against gay marriage is tradition. Given that slavery, war, torture and religious intolerance have all been quite traditional at certain points in our history (and continue to be in parts of the world), I trust no readers of this blog will need convincing that this does not constitute a sound basis for morality. Happily, the archbishop initially seems to agree:
“In arguing from the long history of marriage as a social institution I do not accept the criticism that I am simply arguing from tradition.”
Yet he appears indecisive about this. A mere three sentences later, he starts to argue the opposite:
“We know of no time in history before men and women came together in marriage.”
i.e., it’s traditionally been this way.
(So that I do not quote Sentamu out of context, he then continues:
“The reason for this lies in the difference between, and complementary nature of, the two sexes. The coming together of male and female, of two people who are radically ‘other’, is unique to marriage, and marriage is unique to it.”
This notion of ‘complementarity’, which Sentamu holds up as a motivation for discrimination, invites further discussion, but as it is not related to the argument of tradition I will return to it later.)
However, the greatest contradiction on tradition comes in Sentamu’s original interview with the Daily Telegraph:
“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just overnight, no matter how powerful you are.”
So he’s not “simply arguing from tradition”? It seems to me that his comments across these mere two articles (which are intended to clearly set out his views) are quite confused in this regard. For the time being, however, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his case is founded in something more profound than what happens to be the status quo, and proceed to examine his other arguments.
“Diminished value”
This is a rather curious argument, which the archbishop proposes thus:
“I firmly believe that redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would mean diminishing the meaning of marriage for most people with very little if anything gained for homosexual people.”
It seems that Sentamu is concerned gay marriage might have an inflationary impact on heterosexual marriages. I have difficulty understanding why, and it seems to me a somewhat subjective take on the actual value of marriage: I personally feel the institution is diminished because it is discriminatory. Irrespective, perhaps the archbishop is of the opinion that having too many marriages devalues others, just as printing money devalues a currency. This is nonsense: firstly, it would only be a concern if marriages were a tradable commodity; and secondly, even if that were the case, then he still hasn’t explained why gay people, specifically, should be the group we discriminate against in order to prevent ‘marriage inflation’.
As this is clearly such a ludicrous argument, let us again give the archbishop the benefit of the doubt and put forward one other assumption he makes on the subject of the value of marriage:
“Would we be a better society if we made marriage simply a private contract between two individuals with no wider implications of kinship and family? I do not believe that we would. The issue is not the implication for any existing marriage but the implication for people in future when the social meaning of marriage has been changed and, in my view, diminished.”
The archbishop is artfully vague here, and completely fails to elaborate on what the implications for future generations might be, or how we’d be a better society. Instead, he briefly returns to an earlier subject:
“As I mention earlier, the nature of marriage expressed the complementary nature of the sexes…
As far back as Mary Wolstencraft we find that second view [that a good society needs the different perspectives of women and men equally] pressed very firmly…
Unless one believes that every difference between the sexes is a mere social construct, the question of equality between the sexes cannot be completely addressed by the paradigm of racial equality. And on those grounds, defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discriminatory against same-sex couples. What I am pressing for is a kind of social pluralism that does not degenerate into a fancy-free individualism.”
Here we see a glimmer of a more interesting argument, and it is a shame the archbishop doesn’t pay more attention to it. He seems to be arguing that the different perspectives of a man and woman will make for a better marriage. But better in what way? It is unfortunate that, again, the archbishop is elusive on this matter, but from some of his other comments we can try to piece together his supposed argument:
“The family is designed to meet the different needs of its different members in different ways. It is the model of the just society that responds intelligently to differences rather than treating everyone the same.”
Again, extraordinarily vague! What “different needs” is he referring to? And on what basis do these needs justify discrimination against couples who are different from the norm? The archbishop provides little to clarify the matter. Again, we must look elsewhere for a semblance of an argument, and his comments on the subject of children and the family provide some subtle hints.
Child welfare
On the subject of marriage as an institution, the archbishop considers whether marriage is merely an expression of love between two people:
“Special as this mutual expression of love between two people may be, I do not consider that this amounts to marriage. Mutual loving commitment alone does not capture the meaning of this particular defining relationship, most commonly recognised as a suitable context for the nurture, development, and flourishing of children.”
It’s difficult to be certain, as he remains extremely evasive, but it appears that the archbishop is arguing that gay couples can’t provide the right environment to raise children. (I hope I’m not misinterpreting him here, but I can see no other reason why he would have alluded to children in this context.)
Happily, this argument is easily refuted on a couple of levels.
First: even if it were the case that gay couples couldn’t provide quite the same level of support for their children, then this would still be a bigoted position to take. There are plenty of other ways in which we could slice society to find groups who have various difficulties in raising children in a stable, caring, learning environment (by income and religious background, for example; or single parents): but we don’t try to legislate against these groups to prevent them from starting families, because we recognize that such discrimination would be an abuse of fundamental human rights — indeed, I hope readers of this blog would be sickened by the very idea of doing so. Instead, we provide social safety nets such as child support and benefits to assist members of these groups in raising a family under difficult circumstances. To treat gay people differently in this respect would be to treat them as second class citizens.
But this is a moot point anyway, because the most trusted studies on the subject find no real evidence that gay parents can’t provide just as suitable an environment to raise children as heterosexual couples. For example, the American Psychological Foundation states that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation”; The Future Of Children, a collaboration between Princeton University and the Brookings Institute, draws the same conclusions.
That Sentamu doesn’t even begin to explore this field is telling: this is one area where a more thorough and thoughtful debate could help society better understand that gay parents can do just as good a job as heterosexual couples, and that prejudices in this area are unfounded. Instead, though, he seems to be happy to stick to his own preconceptions, and he continues to fit his world views around them without question.
The basis of morality
More fundamentally, throughout the course of his writing, Sentamu completely fails to provide a coherent, ethical argument. Had he done so, he might have started by clarifying the principles behind his own morality; he should have reviewed the pros and cons of all arguments both in favour and against gay marriage; and he could then have reached a balanced and reasoned conclusion. The reason for his failure to do so is self-evident: he lacks the background, wisdom and learning to lead (or even properly engage in) such a debate.
Instead, his arguments are confused and without substance; and he fails to properly consider the arguments in favour of gay marriage. Not only does this distort the debate, but he does a disservice to his followers by confining the discussion to misinformation and bigotry rooted in tradition: they deserve better, and should demand it; and so should we, as a society.
Time to lose our fear
Unfortunately, the poor quality of the arguments from one of the CofE’s most distinguished leaders is not atypical. Many of the most vocal Christian leaders are similarly misleading and mistaken. Other recent examples have included the cardinals O’Connor (which I recently blogged about here), and O’Brien, who in an interview with the Telegraph said that:
“All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.”
Just like Sentamu, he completely fails to cite or elaborate on this “overwhelming and unequivocal” body of evidence to justify his views (and neither can I find any reference on the website of the cardinal’s archdiocese). Indeed, his position here is not only mistaken: he is either woefully ignorant and ill qualified to speak on the subject, or he is outright lying. (A third theory, proposed in the Independent, is that he’s just sucking up to the Pope. But one supposes the Cardinal would only brave the winds of social change and justice for a matter which at least partially reflected his own beliefs.)
The danger, then, is that ethical debates are often steered by people who have no expertise or knowledge of the subject matter, and seem incapable of leading a thoughtful debate. I’d therefore like to end this post in support of a comment made during a speech earlier this year by Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society:
“It is time now for politicians to lose their fear of religious leaders, to accept that they can’t corral their followers into a voting bloc, and to give the people what they want — a peaceful, tolerant and progressive society”
This post provides some motivation for just how important a goal this is — not just for those who are comfortably agnostic or atheist, but for those who are religious too: Christians deserve better from their Church’s leadership, and should hold their leaders to account when they fail to lead with wisdom and reason.
Finally, as a society, we should reject the politically correct position that religion is a private and taboo subject safe from criticism. Bigotry and intolerance aren’t taboo subjects, and we shouldn’t treat them as such: we should call out any religious and political leaders who make absurd and prejudiced claims. This is right and just: ethical matters should be handled with intelligent debate and informed discourse, not the kind of fiery bigotry purveyed by certain sections of the Church and society. If this is the kind of “aggressive secularism” which Church leaders often complain about, then those leaders should be ashamed for standing in its way — for they are merely reflecting their hostility towards reason and justice when they get caught on the wrong side of history.