Here's a sample:
I can’t help wondering, as a humble churchgoer, why my spiritual mentors do get their garters in such a twist about sex. Whether it’s the Catholics insisting on priestly celibacy (in spite of the mountain of evidence demonstrating what ghastly perversions can grow out of such unnatural repression); or the hardline Anglican evangelicals determined to drive out homosexuals, rather as ancient communities drove out lepers; or the diehard misogynists fighting tooth and nail to stop the “monstrous regiment” of women from rising in the clerical ranks — one has to to ask: what exactly are the reactionaries afraid of? That their own intellectual inadequacies will be exposed, and their “God-given” authority diminished, by an influx of bright priests of different genders and sexual orientations? Or that, in a more inclusive, forward-looking church, they will be exposed as the bigots they are, rather than glorified as spiritual leaders?
The tragedy for the Church is that it is missing a huge opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are disaffected from mainstream politics but equally dissatisfied with the mindless consumerism and callous selfishness of modern life. You can see that from the numbers flocking to espouse green causes, or to work for charities this Christmas. With so many youngsters thinking deeply about what’s right and wrong for the world, this should be a golden age for Christianity — the most revolutionary of religions. But while the Church renders itself a laughing-stock over sex, it hasn’t got a hope of converting the young. At the moment some leading clerics come across as befrocked weirdos with one-track minds. And I’m not talking about their belief in God.
"With so many youngsters thinking deeply about what’s right and wrong for the world, this should be a golden age for Christianity — the most revolutionary of religions. But while the Church renders itself a laughing-stock over sex, it hasn’t got a hope of converting the young."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that the Church's absurd teaching on sex rather parallels its absurd teaching on wealth. Both run contrary to perenial notions that it is the satisfaction of these desires that brings happiness (and in this respect, of course, Christianity is joined in these absurd teachings by Buddhism).
This asceticism, which can be as buried as deeply in Christianity as the renunciation of wealth or vengance, remains important to many, if only as an asperation, a "reach exceeding one's grasp." There could be some recruiting advantage to dropping it. But the point of any church, whether "progressive" or "traditional," is surely to promulgate its message, not tailor it for maximum institutional growth.
I wonder if a requirement of celibacy for salvation is ever going to fit into any kind of a recognizable (or endurable) life for most human beings.
ReplyDeleteBoth Christianity and Buddhism (despite modern political rhetoric) are very family hostile (the truly family friendly religion was the religion of ancient Rome where the home and its fires were literally holy and the family patriarch was a priest and judge in life and a god in death; Judaism is much more about family than either Christianity or Buddhism).
We forget in all the angry shouting matches over "family" that marriage in Christianity was originally a concession to human necessity, not an ideal state of sanctity. The ideal was celibacy. Peter left behind home and family (including family responsibilities to wife and children) to follow Christ. Paul speaks of marriage with a lot less than complete enthusiasm.
Celibacy was not just for the clergy, but for everybody.
The monastic ideal of Buddhism was similarly compromised over time, with monkhood becoming but a phase of religious education for most young Buddhist men in Southeast Asia, and a life profession for only a few.
I think the argument over "gay marriage" as being one about permission is very misplaced. What is offended by the defenses of prohibitions on gay relationships is not people's sense of permission, but their sense of justice. The religious prohibitions are becoming more and more archaic as the scientific evidence for homosexuality as a natural, and harmless, variation piles up (that case goes back a century if you count the work of Auguste Forel). It is not that the religious prohibitions are demanding, but that they are meaningless and pointless, and the motivations for preserving them are suspect.
It seems to me that the evasion of social justice issues by religious leaders is a consequence of centuries of bad faith and hypocrisy. Church synods and councils regularly reaffirmed the prohibitions on usury. And yet, in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the Church was a major banking power.
Certainly the long history of the Church playing the role of spiritual support and police force for the Established Order (in which the Church was usually heavily invested) was the inspiration for Marx's famous comment describing the priest as the landlord's best friend.