A Rose by Any Other Name

It’s ironic actually. When you think about it, it makes you scratch your head in puzzlement. I am referring to all the energy we spend arguing and legislating on the issue of sexuality. The specifics are well known of course, and they touch every conceivable practice whether it be abortion, homosexual rights, contraception, divorce. It’s just a mess. The ironic part is well, this.

If you are fundamentalist in your theology, then you surely believe that God created every creature, and did it quite directly. Meaning evolution played no part but is but a left wing conspiracy created by atheists to subvert God and his kingdom (read SATAN here). So my question is thus: Why make sex so enjoyable? Why consign some folks to feel clearly that they are attracted to members of their own sex? I mean if God controls these things, as any good fundie believes, why the blatant infusion by God of pleasure in what, according to fundies should be mostly only a pro creative act?

It’s a bit of the same argument about YEC (young earth creationists). Why did God present us with fossil evidence and rock evidence that conflicts with a literalistic reading of Genesis? Why does God seemingly put roadblocks in the way of his mortals?

Fundies no doubt argue that these are tests of some sort. I am constrained to wonder why God would wish to test us. Under the same fundie theology doesn’t God already know my heart, even before I do? So that fails, it seems to me, as an argument that can hold water.

So the question remains, if sex is for procreation alone, why then the physical enjoyment. God need only proclaim that thou shall engage in this practice on some regular basis to ensure the continuation of the species. To argue that he had to make it pleasurable, as he did for animals but begs the question and raises that ugly shadow of evolution again.

I raise this because the Roman Catholic Church has managed to put themselves on the wrong side of things but once again. Now before I start, please don’t think I’m trashing the RCC. Goodness knows there are Episcopalians, whole parishes in fact that would agree with Rome. But Rome has made an official statement once again, one that puts them at odds with most of the world.

It seems that the UN has sponsored a declaration calling for the end of the discrimination against homosexuals. Nothing more, just a declaration that making homosexuality a crime, or the acts a crime, or God forbid, killing folks for being homosexual as they do in Saudi Arabia, is wrong and unacceptable. The Vatican has chosen to not support this declaration. And the reason is the usual one, that somehow, countries that oppose gay marriage will be targeted by the UN.

That there is no objective evidence of this is clear. Still the Vatican will not budge, although it has made and continues to make clear statements that it opposes the death penalty. This follows on a further refusal to sign on in a recognition of the rights of the disabled, because it did not contain a condemnation of abortion. Again, no such evidence that the declaration supported abortion was in evidence.

What is going on here? I remember reading some years ago, and I am wanting to attribute the remark to Fr. Robert P. McBrien, but I am not sure about that. In any event the statement was that the worst thing the RCC ever did was get in the business of defining on things sexual. It has gotten itself into a mess and it is impossible now to extricate itself without literally upsetting the entire theology of the Church.

Let me explain. As Roman Catholics know, and many others as well, the Church contends that that it is the true Church. It claims that it is the exact and only Church started directly by Jesus Christ. Similarly, Jesus announced that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church forever, and keep it forever correct even to the point that the “gates of hell would not prevail against it.”

With me so far? Okay. So, this leads to the argument and contention that the Church as a whole cannot err. People within the Church can, but the Church cannot. (How you can always separate the two or know which is which is a bit of a conundrum, but that’s another story.) Thus when the Church pronounces that God prohibits contraception or homosexual acts, or divorce or whatever sexual moray is involved, it is speaking for God Him/Herself. To argue that the Church is wrong, is to argue that God is wrong.

This leads to a blanket refusal to discuss such issues, though of course that stops no one from doing so. In fact, those traditionalists/reactionary elements within the Church like to make the point thusly: “We would be happy to discuss the right of women to ordination, but God has spoken that it is prohibited, so then, much as the Church might wish to look into the matter, it cannot. God has spoken.” You see, it’s not the Church that is on the wrong side of the issues, but God who is, and that argument is of course quite blasphemous.

It has always been my contention that this practice of declaring the Church infallible on its recitation of those things that relate to salvation and morals ends up causing the Church such problems that it looks in the end quite foolish, and certainly hypocritical. Let me explain.

Two items come to mind. First, divorce is not allowed. What God has joined, etcetera. Now there are some exceptions in principle. You are certainly not required to live with someone who is abusing you physically. That does not of course allow you to divorce necessarily, but it does allow you to retain a separate address. But generally speaking, falling out of love is simply not a good reason. Infidelity by the other person is not grounds either.

The second item is contraception. The Church teaches that contraception is an attempt to thwart God’s right to create life as He wishes. (Since God supposedly can do miracles at will, how this thwarts is hard to understand. A failed condom seems fairly easy to effect in the miracle department, to me at least.)

How do these things play out in reality? In America, quite a bit differently than in Europe for sure. In Europe, marriages do tend to last it seems, although infidelity remains a pretty much acceptable practice. But in America, whoa, things are much different. We all are familiar with the numbers of nearly 50% of all marriages ending in divorce. The solution for the faithful Catholic has become marriage nullification otherwise known as annulment, and NFP or natural family planning (science? infused rhythm method).

The use of annulment is a hugely American phenomenon. The last year for which statistics were available, 2002, showed that there were worldwide 56,236 requests for annulment, and of this, 46,092 were granted. Of this number 30,968 came from North America. Some numbers huh? It really takes no genius to figure out that annulment is the new divorce. If God indeed knows the soul, then who is kidding who here?

As to NFP, the lack of use of non-natural barriers to pregnancy seems key. But doesn’t limiting sex to specific days of the month in order to hopefully thwart pregnancy operate in the same vein? Fundie Catholics will of course disagree, since there is no unnatural barrier in place, but the desire is the same is it not? And if God is a respecter of freedom of will, then I guess he can see that both contraception devices and watching the calendar have the same ends in mind. Again, who is kidding who?

My point is simply that this is the kind of game that the RCC has found itself in, since it cannot figure out a way to retract its earlier pronouncements on these issues. It reasonably feels that to reverse course would be to declare that the Holy Spirit made a mistake? That can’t happen obviously. But still, of course the Church could declare that it has massively misinterpreted the scriptures. Not exactly likely to engender great faith among the faithful, that argument.

Thus we find ourselves at this juncture, with the Church opposing obviously moral and good declarations all in the name of consistent theological development. It is what in the end motivates more and more people to can the hypocrisy and move elsewhere in the Christian world, seeking a home more logically oriented. What once was the bastion of logical theology, has become the bizarre world of illogic. It’s ironic, no?