I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’m not a Muslim. Well, suppose I woke up today and decided I was. Suppose I called my blog, Marvelous Meditations from Mecca, and began to explain what we Muslims think. Some Muslims, I might say, at least progressive Muslims, actually reverence Jesus more than we do Muhammad. Further, we have a special veneration for St. Thomas Aquinas. And we’re encouraged to go to Confession at least once a month. To a Catholic priest. Now, in proposing these fascinating ideas, I might be right or I might be wrong. But would I be Muslim? A progressive Muslim? Any kind of Muslim?

There’s a fellow named Hannity who has a talk show on Fox News, says he’s Catholic, and also says he approves of artificial birth control, as well as abortion in cases of rape and incest. So another fellow, a Fr. Tom Euteneuer, of Human Life International, writes him a private reminder that the Catholic Church, to which Hannity loudly belongs, begs to disagree. He asks to chat in private; Hannity invites him onto the show.

I don’t know how long the show went, but you can hear a snappy five minutes here. I am quite annoyed that I cannot link you directly to the clip. Instead, you must face some sort of Hannity home page and browse down to “In Case You Missed It,” under which is the episode, “Judgment Day.” Currently, the page also features uplifting content such us several indignant stories about sex teachers, complete with prurient photos of said offenders. There are certain exquisite varieties of hypocrisy that make a guy long for a new Dante.

Anyhow, this blog won’t be nearly as fun unless you view the clip, so go ahead. Done? Great.

If you didn’t, here’s the basic rundown. Hannity demanded why Fr. Euteneur had the right to say he was a bad Catholic. Fr. Euteneuer, his mike apparently mounted somewhere in the studio audience, started to mumble that Hannity had publicly approved of birth control. Hannity, his mike properly embedded in his throat, interrupted to defend birth control. Also, what did the priest know about him, anyway? Did the priest know that he, Hannity, had been in a seminary? And studied Latin? And why persecute laymen at all, after the sex scandals in the hierarchy; every priest ought to be grateful anyone still called themselves Catholic, etc., etc. The grand chain of crystal syllogisms concluded with, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Several times.

Now, it’s that bit about judging that’s got me. I know I’ve heard it before; you’ve heard it before; we’ve all heard it before. But eventually the context is so ridiculous that if you don’t stand up and say something, your head will explode.

At first glance, this is merely an embarrassing Catholic squabble, distasteful to outsiders, like a mother berating her child in public. But an awful lot of people in this world belong to some kind of religion, and it’s worthwhile to consider what exactly that means.

I, for instance, am a horrendous Muslim, a lousy Jew, and a perfectly dismal Buddhist. If a Zoroastrian priest clapped a paternal hand on my shoulder and said, I fear you misunderstand the Mysteries, I would have to admit that I can’t remember the last time that I worshipped the Sun God. I am a bad Zoroastrian.

But does that mean I am a bad person? I don’t think so. But what is a bad person, anyway? That’s exactly the kind of question that you ask your religion.

And religions, fortunately or unfortunately, are bigger than we are. Even successful talk show hosts. I can’t decide what Methodism really is, because a large body of folks have already gotten together, made a lot of snappy decisions, and called the result Methodism. You can look at it as a trademark issue. I am perfectly free to believe whatever I want, but I can’t call it Methodism. That’s taken. At the very least, I have to start a new variety with a clear new name, such as Marvelous Methodism.

Now, Fr. Euteneuer did not propose to imprison Hannity for his heresy. He merely invited him either to regularize his position within the Roman Catholic Church, or else drop the big C word (also taken) and, like so many adventurous folk before him, strike out on a bold path of his own.

The priest’s letter mentioned scandal, which can almost, but not quite, be translated for our consumer ears as false advertising. In short, he wrote, you gave the impression to millions of people that birth control is okay because you think it is okay and that you will not allow the Church’s teaching to disturb your lifestyle. That is, you implied that the teaching on birth control is not really part of being Catholic. But it is part of being Catholic; like any worthwhile religion, the Catholic Church has clear, public rules about its membership. Outside those rules (meaning, on 999 topics out of 1000), we’re free to think whatever we please, but we do have those rules, which include a core set of doctrines. If you follow them, you’re in; if you don’t, you’re out. To say otherwise is to mislead.

Yet even “the Jew” on the show, as he termed himself, was respectably horrified that the priest would refuse to give Hannity Holy Communion. Maybe, being a Jew, and thus understandably preoccupied with the precepts of his own faith, he didn’t happen to know that Holy Communion is not exactly like the Wednesday Night Soup Kitchen. If Hannity’s career took a turn for the worse, and he showed up for free soup, and Fr. Euteneuer asked, “Before I hand you this watered-down Minestrone, you’re going to have to tell me: how do you feel about birth control?” then I would be horrified too. Wednesday Night Soup is for everyone. But Roman Catholic Communion is a Roman Catholic thing. It is part of being in the Roman Catholic club. If you don’t follow the rules of the Shriners, you do not get to march with them in the parade and you do not get the cool hat. Why is this so monstrous?

We Catholics think Holy Communion is so special that we’re not even supposed to take it ourselves unless our souls are free of deadly sin. Ordinarily, the priest has no way of knowing what we’ve been up to, so we all have the right of the benefit of the doubt. But if someone has publicly (cough, on his talk show) denied a core belief of Catholicism, well, what are we do to but take him at his word?

People get all in a snit about denying people Holy Communion, but since when is there this unalienable right to participate fully in this particular service of this particular religion? The matter did not come up at the Constitutional Convention. Nor does the Constitution affirm that you cannot challenge someone’s claim to a religious label. Why is it so unreasonable to expect that people not call themselves Catholic unless they hold our core set of doctrines?

From the average American perspective, of course, they’re an exotic, motley crew, but the same goes for any interesting religion. If you don’t believe all that stuff, that’s totally cool, just don’t call yourself Catholic—and why on earth would you want to? People have died to avoid being tarnished with the dreaded taint of Papistry. If you can’t stand the Pope’s pronouncements, don’t! This truculent demand to hold on to the label stupefies me, it’s like these people think they have to be at the cool table. Go make your own cool table. There are thousands already.

Of course, if you like most of the core set of doctrines, ninety-nine percent, again, you’re in good company. Witness the noble crowds of High Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, Old Catholics, and sede vacante Catholics, not to mention that half of Christianity that parted company with the Papacy a thousand years ago and became the flourishing Orthodox Church. Really, you have options. There are crowds of wonderful people out there who are willing and eager to help you get over this compulsion to call yourself a Roman Catholic.

Do Roman Catholics have a monopoly on virtue? Does being a bad Catholic, or rather, not really a Catholic, mean you can’t be a good person? Many of Hannity’s friends, I think, would find this insinuation offensive, starting with his co-host. As would I.

Of course, I don’t mean by all this that I don’t myself hold Catholicism to be right and those who disagree with it incorrect. Naturally, I myself think that Hannity would be much better off for being Catholic, and I hope he takes that route. If I thought it really didn’t matter which religion you bound yourself to, not only would I myself not be a real Catholic, but Catholicism would be the last thing on earth I would bother about. It’s the middle of Lent, for crying out loud.

But I doubt very much Hannity cares what I think; the point is what he thinks. If he disagrees with the Church, that’s his sacred right. Ultimately, the priest was asking him merely to change his mind or else choose an honest label.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. I would be odd indeed to be shocked at the spectacle of a self-professed Catholic defending birth control (though when Hannity suggested that he only approved birth control for non-Catholics, his moral view took a decidedly Escheresque turn). It’s his rant about judgmentalism that flabbergasts me. Such a response might be at least superficially tenable from some whispering retired grandmother, who hasn’t criticized anyone since her grandkid blew up her shed three years ago. But Hannity is a talk show host. (I was tempted to say, a Fox News talk show host, but I didn’t. Aren’t you proud?)

Really, what on earth does a talk show host do all day but call people in, try to peg them with a few key phrases, and then make a lot of obnoxious, pardon me, insightful, comments? Yes, we know that no one can judge a man’s heart. Hannity kept demanding, Do you know about me? Do you know I was in the seminary? Do you know I studied Latin? I wish the priest had reassured him that these achievements had no bearing on his membership in the Catholic Church. I have yet to hear even the most scarred baby boomer claim that before Vatican II, the Church demanded expertise in Latin on pain of eternal damnation. Yes, the priest would have had to know these things, and a great deal more, if he was trying to judge the heart of Hannity. But he was not. Fr. Euteneuer did not say, “Hannity, I’m here to say that you secretly hate your wife, you loathe Jesus, and you’re yearning to vote for Hilary.” That would have been judging the heart, and that would have been mean, and probably inaccurate.

All the priest said that was Hannity approves of birth control. How did he know? Because Hannity had said so. On national television. Then he commented on how Hannity’s ideas about birth control squared with the sparse but emphatic membership guidelines for the Catholic Church. He judged Hannity’s ideas. He acted like a talk show host, to a talk show host. And this, if you please, is being judgmental. It is apparently judgmental to say, You said this, and that disqualifies you from being in the Catholic club, by its own very clear and public rules which anyone can read whenever they like.

I can imagine Hilary Clinton, her current views intact, deciding to call herself a Republican, and Hannity sternly reminding his viewers, Now, now! If she considers herself a Republican, who are we to say who does and who does not belong to the One True Party? Judge not, lest ye be judged!

What he really meant was, Critique not, lest ye be critiqued. And for a talk show host, of all people, to claim this sort of intellectual immunity is like a doctor, blistering with shingles, huffing, Diagnose not, lest ye be diagnosed. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Maybe I’d better get a second opinion.