Another American nun has had her theological work condemned. The usual tired narrative is provoked: power-hungry old men vs plucky female pioneer. She favors masturbation, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and remarriage after divorce. People act shocked that there's a problem. This "widely respected" teacher disingenuously denies that she was attacking traditional doctrine or proposing a new set. She calls her work "another genre entirely." Her book, Just Love*, is apparently the theological equivalent of "Just sayin'."
What people forget is how mild and rare Rome's reactions now are, compared to what they used to be.
And I include Rome during Cardinal Ratzinger's term at the Holy Office. How many ideas, practices and/or people had sanctions laid against them during his whole term? It was hardly a reign of terror.
When I left the priesthood and the Dominican Order twenty-five years ago, it was partly based, ironically, on my commitment to Catholicism. That is, despite my sense of personal rightness about my sexuality, I knew very well that Catholicism was not something that you can make up as you go along. Especially if you are vowed/ordained and a public theologian. Just because I wanted this 2000 year old tradition to agree with me did not mean that it would. Or, as I realized, could.
Part of my irritation at liberal Catholics may be an unconscious resentment at them for having their cake and eating it, too, while I made the painful choice to jump the Barque of Peter in mid-journey. But part of it is my general dislike of liberal dishonesty and the refusal to accept that certain organisms have an identity, one which may not be dreamed up from scratch every ten minutes.
Everything the liberal Catholics want in a church already exists, fully formed, in the Episcopal Church. To me, they lack the balls to jeopardize their "prophetic" status and livelihoods and make honest women and men out of themselves.
Obviously, Catholicism remains a deep interest of mine, probably on a genetic level. And although I typically fall on the conservative side re its hierarchical-dogmatic-sacramental aspect, my rejection of its complicity in The Camp of the Saints project ( as well as my unrepentant same-sex eros) keeps me well outside the Aurelian walls.
*Though Ex Cathedra likes polysemous titles himself, the double-entendre in Just Love gives the game away. Any movement that privileges justice above all is a progressive one. All unfolds therefrom without surprise thereafter. And of course, Just Love almost means Nothing Other Than Love...which is so Sixties.
____
3 comments:
Doesn't historia discover that Christianity/ies are rather adjustable? (The Founder in fact seems to have "dream'd [his religion] up from [Old] Scratch." Matthew 4, Luke 4.)
But I suppose the point is that dream re-weavers must endeavour to put down roots for their revisions. Obviously by the time of the election of John Paul II "spirit of V2" Catholicism was going to have only a negating effect -- removing Catholic piety as c.1960 (sacramentals, veneration of the BVM and saints, 'clericalism,' the Latin mass, and other things that RCs with pre-V2 memories can specify far better than i), and the intellectuals' new dreams were going to remain in the academy.
The bishops or the Vatican at least have been willing to support the Democrats in populist left stuff (social spending, etc à la "The Camp of the Saints") but have stonewall'd demands for gay marriage, gay priests, marry'd priests, ordination of women. The RCC could have accepted the path of the Episcopalians, but for whatever reasons forbore. (The "obvious" necessity of preserving one's institution presumably apply'd to Episcopalians too, but they press'd on.)
The re-weaving call'd "the theology of the body" has been more popular, but as a mystical (inner path?) sideline, in comparison with the saints' days, sacramentals, etc of yesteryear. The theology of the body evidently does not show forth the glory of the Church into the saeculum.
Doesn't Jung relate that he exclaim'd "Why do you, a priest, come to me when yo have at your disposal a two-thousand-year-old instrument with all its accumulated wisdom designed especially to deal with problems of soul and conscience?!" to a priest who consulted him because of his bind before the antinomy "either ordination or [profane, in the world] marriage"?
I suppose the answer to Jung's not merely rhetorical question is that obviously the priest was seeking a way out of or through the aporia -- hoping for a psychiatric-medically mandated permission or, better, commandment to marry in the world.
Nietzsche reveals the purpose of apparently formalistically imposed rules and regulations -- as in poetry -- are for the sake of substance sc ousia, essence. The ascetic ideal, including the Buddha's middle path, is not for the sake of the asceticness, but is imposed as a preparation for such sensuality as is congruent with the rule of clergy, priests, hierophants, intellectuals of one sort or another. Profane celibacy is for the sake of sacred marriage.
In our own desublimational aiôn, sacred marriage and even sacred prostitution seems well profaned or dump'd into the world, though I suppose it was at least hinted at in the myth of Oedipus (cf Luke 15:31). The Ishtar-Venus final saying from the Cross (3rd en route from Shamash to Ninurta-Saturn) is John 19:26-27. And in any case, asceticism (including ordinary marriage as nonlegitimate asceticism, done by Christians, Jews, et al) into the seculum, the profane, is indeed the beginning of the sacred marriage.
St. Paul's advice seems to be since marriage in _the_ world is for the sake of inner path exiting the world via _this_ world (1Cor 7:33f, 31) for the sake of sacred marriage in the Lord Noah-Melchizedek (v. 35), one may as well do only asceticism in one's self in the world. Legitimated or charismatic asceticism is enough. (The Prodigal is only "this" son for here, not 'the' son or 'that' son. Luke 15:30)
The healthiest, most unpickwickianly well-adjusted solution to apparently formalistic rules and regulations is "compartmentalization." Because of women's social ambitions and enjoyments, compartmentalization does not work well or justly for the non-legitimate marriage of a priest and a woman. But compartmentalization of unpickwickian homosexuality and Christian churchmanship does work very well. This arrangement seems to be help'd by some class contempt in the gay compartment for churchmanship.
Perhaps compartmentalization seems unjust since the compartmentalizers are supporting anti-homosexual religion. But in view of the manifest impossibility of building church attendance in gay-friendly denominations, the anti-homosexuality clampdown seems essential. The higher love perhaps has always opposed its legitimation into ordinary culture.
Islam seems well suited to this higher love: Shariah's strict criteria for bringing an accusation of homosexuality -- and who really wishes to do this? -- is four adult male witnesses. Why would anti-gay adult males be present at a venue where homosexuality is occurring? ... The whole point seems to be to avoid the profanation of Lut, even practising Lut, not to mention the theoretical Lut.
Lesbians perhaps would resent compartmentalization of their spirituality-not-religious from their relationship not-that-sexual lives.
But evidently they have little or no wish to participate in even the most LGBT-friendly churches. I suppose the question really is whether there's any real validation or even any real room for heterosexual women in "womanchurch" sorts of ad hoc institutionalizations. ... I guess it is difficult to enthuse for the love of one's husband or boyfriend after an evocation of protest resistance struggle sisterhood vs the patriarchy and male privilege.
Post a Comment