Criticism of the Catholic Church's actions have been labeled as "anti-Catholic bigotry" by many conservative Catholics. I do not think, however, that such a complaint has a lot of merit. It isn't necessarily bigoted or anti-Catholic to be critical of actions taken by the Catholic hierarchy if those actions may have consequences for non-Catholics and the rest of society. There is no question that that is true here. Where, then, is the bigotry supposed to be?
Could it be contained in the choice of language used to criticize Catholic actions? Perhaps, but a better case could be made here if non-Catholic groups with similar agendas and ideas were treated more kindly or even given a pass on this. That clearly isn't the case. Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim groups which offer similar arguments against gay marriage aren't treated any more gently than the Catholic Church. If there is any difference in how groups are treated, it would be attributable to the relative size and power of Roman Catholicism. The fact that the Vatican has a global reach and influence not available to other groups justifies some extra attention.
Could it be that critics are expressing anti-Catholic bigotry because they are trying to deny the Catholic Chruch the right to do something which they obviously should be allowed, namely the right to instruct members on matters of faith and morals? This is the most likely basis for the allegations, but I don't think that it works very well. Somehow I think that if a foreign country like France were to try to influence American elections (how? I don't know - refuse entry to anyone who votes Republican?), Americans would be outraged.
But why? Surely France has the right to refuse entry to anyone they wish and for any reason they wish. Wouldn't critics be guilty of anti-French bigotry because they are trying to deny France the right to do something they should be allowed to do? No, I don't think so. Being outraged need not only be a reaction to someone doing something they have no right to do. Being outraged can be a legitimate reaction to someone acting within their rights but in a manner that is inappropriate.
You may have a right to be racist and you may have a right to voice racist feelings, but does this mean that others should shut up and let you go ahead, or would it be fair for people to argue against you? Just because you have a right to do or say something doesn't mean that you should; and if you go ahead and do it anyway, you can't justly get upset when others react negatively.
The Roman Catholic Church has the right, obviously, to exclude all blacks from positions of power among both the clergy and the laity. No laws can stop them from doing it. Does that mean, therefore, that if anyone gets upset and criticizes the church for doing it they are just expressing anti-Catholic bigotry? Of course not. Some bigots might latch on to this issue for convenience, but that doesn't render all criticisms irrelevant. The same is true when the Catholic Church tries to influence elections in the manner that we are seeing now.
This is not to say, of course, that Catholic opposition to gay marriage isn't without any reasonable basis. One of the fears of Catholic leaders is how they will contend with married gays working for Catholic institutions and Catholic employers. Will they have to provide spousal benefits? Will they have to provide health insurance to gay spouses? That would be difficult for a religious institution which considers homosexual acts and homosexual marriage to be immoral. It's only natural that they would consider ways to avoid having to recognize such unions as valid.
One might be sympathetic to the Catholic conundrum here, but that sympathy shouldn't extend too far. If Catholic institutions were contemplating the denial of benefits to interfaith couples, divorced and remarried couples, or couples who have used contraceptives, sterilization, or abortion, I don't think that there would be a great deal of sympathy for them.
Why shouldn't the same should hold true here as well? The Catholic church may not regard gay marriages as valid, but they also don't regard remarriage after divorce as valid without an annulment. If they can't ignore remarried couples, they shouldn't be allowed to ignore gay couples either.
