On Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI asked the crowd gathered in St. Peter's Square to pray that his first visit to the United States as pontiff this week would "be a time of spiritual renewal for all Americans." Surely spiritual renewal would be beneficial to all of us -- not least the pope and his Church.
Benedict's visit is an appropriate time for American Catholics to call upon him to recognize that spiritual renewal, like charity, begins at home. The pope must take action to revive a Church in desperate need of revolutionary renewal by pushing significant reform in the area of its largest failings: policies concerning women and sex. Faced in recent years with what may be its greatest crisis since the abuses of the Renaissance papacy five hundred years ago stimulated the Protestant Reformation, the Church has to seize the opportunity to reverse two thousand years of misguided views on women.
This pope's history offers little hope that he will do so. He was, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the principal author of the Vatican's 2004 letter to bishops, "On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." In that document the Church once more chose to blame the victim rather than to examine its own major role in the problem.
Modern feminism is the trouble, the old men who cling to power in Rome contend. "Faced with the abuse of power," the Vatican letter complained of feminism, "the answer for women is to seek power." Well, yes. And if the men of the Church--and men more generally--had not been abusing power for thousands of years, there would be no need for women to seek ways to redress the balance.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the homily Cardinal Ratzinger gave on the day before the convening of the conclave that selected him as pope. He denounced a "dictatorship of relativism" that, he contended, threatens to undermine the fundamental teachings of Christianity. What Benedict XVI and other anti-progressive Catholics fail to realize is that the current teachings of the Church on a host of interrelated issues -- women priests, clerical celibacy, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and, most basic of all, the sex of God -- are themselves the result of the Church at various times in the past having been, in Ratzinger's words the day before he became pope, "tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching" to conform to the practices and prejudices of societies now long gone.
What Pope Benedict XVI should, but almost certainly will not, do is call a council of the Church to address these intertwined issues and to recognize that the Church's positions on them are not based on the teachings of Jesus. The Church established from the time of St. Paul onward was set up as a No-Woman's Land. The general views on the inferiority of women come from Paul's interpretation of the literally incredible story of the creation of Eve from Adam, a story that men had made up to overcome their feelings of inferiority because of women's capacity to give birth. The ban on women priests also emanates from Paul's reliance on Genesis and from the Early Church Fathers' rejection of the role of women around Jesus and particularly the centrality of Mary Magdalene as one equal to St. Peter.
Priestly celibacy was not established as a requirement until the Middle Ages and was based on the belief that women are unclean because they menstruate (another indication of the envy of female capacities that is the root of all the restrictions men place on women). When Thomas Aquinas declared in the thirteenth century that "woman is defective and misbegotten," he was echoing Paul, Genesis, and Aristotle -- not Jesus.
The Church's opposition to birth control and to abortion even early in pregnancy is largely an outgrowth of its all-male composition and those males' attempts to degrade women's physical powers by asserting that women and the intercourse into which they putatively tempt men are necessary evils ("It is well for a man not to touch a woman," Paul instructed the Christians of Corinth), the only purpose of which is procreation. The condemnation of homosexuals is based entirely on Old Testament rules established by men who feared anything that placed in question their insistence on the polarity of the sexes.
The idea that God is solely male is the work of the Church Fathers who chose which gospel accounts to include in the official New Testament and excluded all the Gnostic Gospels that contain references to an androgynous God, and of the bishops who met at Constantinople in 381 and modified the Creed to say that the Holy Spirit is male. The idea that a Creator could be of only one sex is absurd on its face. Yet this nonsensical belief, which actually diminishes God, has been one of the main bases for the subordination of women and values associated with them -- precisely the values taught by Jesus -- throughout the history of the Church.
The bottom line is that none of the Church's positions on women and sex come from the teachings of Jesus. All of them are the products of the very relativism that the current pope decries. The relativism of an earlier day has become the dogma of today.
A popular hymn asserts that the Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ. The truth, however, is that since the early centuries of the religion that took up the name of Christianity, the Church's one foundation has been male insecurity and its consequent subordination of women. Peter may have been the rock upon which Jesus sought to build his Church, but the rock upon which those who built Christianity in the early centuries after Jesus was the misogyny of their societies. Benedict XVI needs to lead the Church in a true revolution: a circling back to the actual teachings of Jesus and away from the perversions of those teachings by the early Church Fathers and their successors.
During the second week of his papacy in 1978, John Paul I sensibly declared that God "is a Mother as well as a Father." Eighteen days later John Paul I was dead, only 33 days after his election. Despite that unfortunate example and his own stance against desperately needed reform, Benedict XVI owes it to Catholics to take the bold steps needed to break the hold on the Church of earlier flings with relativism and to bring the institution he heads into line both with the needs of the modern world and with the teachings of Jesus.
Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College. This piece is based in part on his new book, Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America, which has just been published by Crown.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A MODEST PROPOSAL
==================================
Have you thought about writing the Pope an "open letter"?
It's something that a lot of bloggers apparently do on HuffPo. I assume it gets read by the recipient...otherwise why would they all bother?
The Gaudiya Vaishanva line worships God in male and female forms together as a couple: Radha and Krishna. Krishna is male and He is God, but because of Radha's pure love for Him, He is like a puppet in Her hands. In Vedic culture a woman is subordinate to her husband, and in this spiritual understanding of life the subordinate position is known to be superior. It is an accepted principle in Vedic culture that a sweet, submissive wife easily captures her husband's heart. Similarly, God is conquered by pure devotion to Him, and that is Radha's special talent.
Also, Krishna has innumerable plenary expansions called Vishnu tattva, and one of these Vishnu forms is a female known as Mohini ("Enchantress").
In the Brihad-Gautamiya Tantra, Radharani is described as follows:
"The transcendental goddess Srimati Radharani is the direct counterpart of Lord Sri Krishna. She is the central figure for all the goddesses of fortune. She possesses all the attractiveness to attract the all-attractive Personality of Godhead. She is the primeval internal potency of the Lord."
As Krishna said, "When Srimati Radharani smiles, waves of joy overtake Her cheeks, and Her arched eyebrows dance like the bow of Cupid. Her glance is so enchanting that it is like a dancing bumblebee, moving unsteadily due to intoxication. That bee has bitten the whorl of My heart." (Vidagdha-madhava 2.51)
In my opinion the Catholic church is so lost in the mists of time. The Vatican is the biggest and most expensive drag queen show in history
McElvaine,
I can't believe that you, as a professor and published author, have used the word 'Bisexual" in reference to a supposed being who, if it existed, would be completely spiritual in nature. The patriarchal culture has used the male pronoun when speaking of it, but it would not have a physical body and would therefore be without any gender or sexual designation.
Perhaps "Genderless" or "Gender Neutral" would be more appropriate? "Sexually Neuter" implies castration so that doesn't work . "Bisexual" may be defined in some dictionaries as "of both sexes", but that is not the commonly used meaning and "Androgynous" or "Hermaphroditic" more precisely fits that definition.
So, unless you did mean to say that God has a body and engages in sexual behavior with beings of two different and distinct sets of sexual characteristics, I think you might want to use some other word.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, but I'm still confounded by your use of that word so I just had to come back.
Please elaborate and correct me if I've misunderstood..
Interesting comment. It's not that God has a body like we have a body. For we ordinary living entities, there is a difference between spirit soul and material body, but God is not divided like that. There is form but God is not different from His forms or His names.
By the way, the spiritual oneness of the Personality of Godhead with His name, form, pastimes, etc., is what is actually meant by nonduality as mentioned in the Vedas. (It's pretty much the opposite of what modern nonduality proponents propose. The nondualists claim that when God says "surrender unto Me," He means not to Himself personally but to the impersonal Brahman or spirit. Thus to support their claim that the absolute truth is pure oneness they have to differentiate God from His eternal form, which is most preposterous.)
God has no lusty desires, so the talk here of sex is out of place, as you've pointed out.
HuffPost's Pick
History repeats itself. As usual, and as it has been for centuries, the Catholic Church is doing too little, too late.
Rather than preach about the need for charity, the Pope should empty some of the Vatican treasure houses and start feeding the poor.
Rather than scolding the women of the world for their attempts to gain power, the Pope should acknowledge that women have as much right to it as men and redress centuries of misogynistic attitudes and actions.
Rather than speaking of his deep shame about the sexual abuse of children by his clergy, the Pope should hold accountable those who indulged their pedophilia without restraint, and with impunity.
He should stop providing a safe haven for them in the Vatican and at hundreds of so-called retirement homes or retreats.
He should order Cardinal Law and all those like him back to the countries where they either abused children themselves or covered up abuse by others.
He should defrock any priest or nun convicted of the abuse of those least able to protect themselves from the depradations of the "sanctified."
Finally, he should carefully examine the smug piety and shameful extravagances of the Catholic Church. Neighborhood churches are closing because they can't afford to stay open, while the Vatican inhabitants live like royalty.
Tandrmcdonald, I suppose after nearly 2000 years of existence one shouldn"t be too surprised that the Vatican has some wealth. It"s interesting that there are plenty of individuals and corporations that have much more wealth than the Vatican, but nobody ever says that these entities should sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor.
It should also be noted that much of what the Vatican owns is open to the public to use and view. One would think if the Vatican was to sell its "treasures" such treasures would be removed from public access. And you think this is a good thing? Do you also think our Governments could also sell all our Art Galleries and Museums? Think of all the poor people that could be fed with the money raised from such a sale.
I suspect most people who raise the issue of Vatican wealth aren"t so much interested in helping the poor as they are in trying to destroy the Church.
Why would you write an article publicly asking the catholic church to have an epiphany they are never going to have? Oppression of women and homosexuals has been the cornerstone of that church's power for centuries. These men are not about to give up any power. The only way anyone is going to win back christianity from this mob is by starving them of money. Save that plate money and give only to local charities where most of the money is spent directly on the cure, be more like Christ every day and skip the sunday brainwashing sessions. Ghandiji said; "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" and he also said; "Be the change you wish to see in the world".
Just realize that Christians are not just Catholics, they are Evangelists, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, and hte list goes on and on.
McElvaine's column regarding a 'Bisexual God' is precisely the type of total idiocy that loses debates for Progressives.
Since the Pope and the Church are against the Death Penalty, we should concentrate on getting the Pope to speak against it, especially since the Supreme Court OK"ed lethal injections today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_lethal_injection
well said
While I can agree that the catholic church's entirely hypocritical stance on many large moral and ethical issues is something to be both challenged and ridiculed, I found Mr. McElcaine's article to be interesting if not futile. I am not sure that referring to anyone's efforts as total idiocy is very productive and is surprisingly crass from someone we can infer is referring to themselves as a progressive with a capital P.
I HAVE NEVER READ SUCH SUPREME NONSENSE, AND SECULARIST --BI-SEXUAL GOD--THOMAS ACQUINAS, THE ARCH-GRAND-DADDY (A MALE,YES) IN ABOUT 1224 INSISTED THAT THE FIRST QUESTION IN ADDRESSING THE BEING OF GOD WAS TO REGARD HIM AS A SPIRITUAL BEING, AND THEREFORE ABOVE AND WITHOUT GENDER. GENDERS DISCUSSION IN
GOD HAS BECOME AN IRRELEVNT QUESTION SINCE THEN---YOU PEOPLE JUST HAVE NOT CAUGHT UP.
GENDER IN RELIGIOUS MINISTRY IS determined by one's sense of the scriptures and culture--and
the Catholic consensus now is that scripture presents Jesus in the imagery---I stress the imagery--of male, and cannot be ignored. Please, you bigoted and ignorant gad-flies--at least stay home when the Pope is here. Thanks--James an Irish Catholic Democat whose 17 relatives in Pennsylvania are all
planning to vote for Obama--as will I in November
Hmmm...
As I recall, the opening line to the Lord's Prayer is "Our FATHER, who art in heaven ..."
If you want to pretend that the concept of god in christianity is asexual, you are kidding yourself. Your argument, in general, represents a common approach to defending one's faith - give evidence that a few church academics believe something completely different from the laity, and claim this proves that the church as a whole does not hold the particular crazy belief under discussion. Nonsense. Stand outside a christian church - any denomination you please - and ask the people coming out of Sunday mass whether god is male or not. Then report back to us with your findings.
Well you know what you need to condemn more than half of the world's religions for holding the supreme deity as a Male from ancient times to modern times.
This thread has confirmed what humans have known since the dawn of time: criticize a person's beliefs and you can see the claws and fears flying. The venom unleashed by Christians here underscores what McElvaine said about how people perverted Christ's message over the centuries. Since no one, except John, knew the historical Jesus, should his gospel be "Gospel Truth".
Rarely will two people agree on every issue there is.
That said, it never ceases to amaze me how when Christians get defensive and angry lately, it is okay to denigrate other faiths, such as the post about would McElvaine have written the same article about Islam. Besides misogyny, another great perversion of religion is to denigrate other faiths in the name of the "True Faith": if my faith is the "true" one, then yours is not and is not only not okay, it is detrimental. I hope the Christian faithful would read the Koran (as I have), the Bible (as I have), and to read the Torah as used in synagogues (as I yet haven't).
This denigration of others and holding oneself to be the best, ergo, superior to others is evil and at the root of the most damaging of the societal ills out there. That is their choice but, they unknowingly spread the hate and misery that, among other religious groups, the Catholic Church has participated and continues to participate. As Jesus said to his Father: "Forgive them for they know not what they do."
It's sad to think that after thousands of years of "civilization" we still haven't finished arguing about initial concepts.
And by the way, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? lol.
signed,
an atheist
As a fellow atheist I find it depressing that not only do people think that there are important concepts to be discussed about the Roman Catholic church, but that the really serious flaws within todays catholicism are largely ignored. This church never made it into the 20th C. , and I see no signs of it lurching toward the 21st C. The sexual abuse scandals were a given considering the propinquity of celibate men and alter boys. The most promising development in finding a way the church could help the poor in Latin America was through the ideas of liberation theology. This theology has been ruthlessly suppressed by this and the previous Pope. Equally shameful is the continued relegation of women to an inferior status. The Pontiff deplores war and violence but I do not see the Vatican active either through suasion or treasure in any solutions to these problems. If the Pope really deplored the Iraq war, and our governments use of torture, should he be meeting with Bush? In the Vatican's objection to stem cell research they are inhibiting scientific progress. Remember, a previous Pope persecuted Galileo ! To me in face of all of these failings I find the medias breathlessly reverent coverage of this Papal visit both ridiculous and depressing.
Most religions are long overdue in their duty to catch up with the times and seek doctrine that is relevant to humans TODAY, not 2000 yrs. ago. When in a dangerously overpopulated world , religions still insist on not using birth control, they are out of touch with current times. . If God created us with a brain, don't you think he meant us to use it and decide for ourselves what is best for each individual? How can the pope look at any third world country for ex: with its massive poverty, wars and famine and insist they do nothing about it , This is so blind and ignorant, it harms people rather than help them. Education and birth control is the key to a better world , as well as to our own survival in it. Education also means caring for the environment, which is destroyed by over population of humans and their needs and consumption.
I can understand during the medieval ages, one had to be careful not to get pregnant, as this was
a disgrace to a unmarried woman etc.... but now , it should be mandatory education all students to learn how to prevent diseases and unwanted pregnancies. parents who disagree should move to some islamic country, where sex is still taboo. This theory of abstinence will never work, it just keeps people ignorant and sad mistakes will happen as they always do .Religion could be helpful only if it adapts to 21 century!
Hear! Hear! Sir.
And these attitudes toward women have been around for about 6000 years. Significant that fundamentalists think the world is 6000 years old when that is when the Indo-European cattle herders swept down on the gynocentric civilization of the fertile crescent and destroyed civilization for the last 6000 years ! Brutality, violence and perversion of life have been the consequence ever since. We're gonna have to dig these ideas out by their roots over generations.
The bible is not the word of G-O-D... It is the word of MAN and is a social and political control mechanism. The sooner we all realize this the sooner stuff like the polygamous compound full of brain-washed, abused women will stop happening. Those women point out exactly what I mean. They believe their husbands need to direct, correct and control them because they are the "origin of sin".
" During the second week of his papacy in 1978, John Paul I sensibly declared that God ' is a Mother as well as a Father ' . Eighteen days later John Paul I was dead, only 33 days after election".
He also wanted to open the books to the clandestine and shady financial dealings of the Church. Yes, 33 days after election he was dead: He was MURDERED.
Is'nt it ironic that the leader of a church that has condemed the invasion of Iraq as an Unjust War, and on a day when the Supreme Court upholds lethal injection as a means of capitol punishment which is supported by 60% of the American people Benedict makes nice with a War Criminal at the White House. It is disgusting.
Seriously Ironfox, you need to stop talking to those Pixies.
McElvaine has not well studied the Catholic Church. I hope his book is a lot better than his blog article. McElvaine reads far too much into the Church history, not that women were misplaced, but that McElvaine does not understand how in the context of the Church that matter happened, or how it is being changed.
Doesn't anyone here think that is it possible for someone to be hard-working, kind to others, married with children and devoted to their family and helping their community without belonging to a church or maybe even being agnostic? I witness it all the time in my life. We need to be internally driven in a pure way from our own hearts and minds to be enlightened, to help and be kind to others and ourselves. For some people, going to a church and hearing sermons helps provide them a framework to do these things. Other people don't necessarily need it. I think we should restrain from criticizing people either way for their choice to belong or not belong to a church.
It is possible and it is in practice by many; it is called secular humanism.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what§ion=main
Yes, but then how would the church PAY their bills? Don't you see, it takes people to tithe and keep the whole system going. So you must be made to feel guilty if you're not a church goer.
Being a do-gooder won't keep the SYSTEM viable.
McElvaine's ideas about Catholicism are based on a few non-historical and non-biblical concepts. But he gets a pass from HUFFPost since he's putting his bias in the shape of some ill-defined pro-feminist stance. McElvaine doesn't realise that the Church is still here preaching Christ because it refuses to trade in Jesus for the new model Messiahs like he believes himself to be.
Gee, it looks like I'm the only one who is offended by the unexplained and improper use of the word "bisexual" in this headline. I guess people would rather argue about semantics and unsupported and/ or uncited assertions. I thought Huffungton writers readers were smarter than this. Oh well.
Aren't you arguing semantics? I think everyone here is aware that the definition of 'bisexual' refers to proclivities rather than innate, outward characteristics, but I am hard pressed to find a more appropriate word; what word would you suggest Mr. McElvaine use?
There's nothing wrong with bisexuals... I used to ride mine to school every day. Much more healthy than taking the bus.
Posted April 15, 2008 | 07:56 PM (EST)