Pope Should Start "Spiritual Renewal" with Bisexual God

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.

Comments

[konastephen]

Well Mr. McElvaine,

Since your view of Christianity is that it's "literally incredible", what do you care what this Pope or any other Pope says about the Bible's teaching on men and women? Clearly your only purpose is to mock and belittle and discredit and offend. Or are you just pitching your queer little quaver to join once again into the old 20th century Misotheistic's refrain: "Christianity oppresses women. Christianity oppresses women." What a predictable, tired, outdated rant.

Anyone who knows and loves the Creator and his Word, Catholic or not, knows full well what is or isn't true Christianity, within or without the Church. You clearly don't but won't let that stop you from holding foolishly forth on the Holy Father's shortcomings. I have a suggestion for you for a future column more in line with your more "secularist" "faith" (this should garner lots of readers for you too; according to Bill O'Reilly secularism is on the rise in America): perhaps you might explain the increase in adult female sexual abuse of underage males. I'll bet you it does actually have more to do with Gloria Steinem than the Apostle Paul.

What? That's not a serious issue, you say.

I rest my case.

[cfswift1]

The Catholic Church has a long history of distorting what Christianity is? While the Catholic Church does discriminate against women I find some of the comments lacking in accuracy of what the BIBLE teaches. The Bible is the first, last and ONLY authoritative word on Christianity.
For those who choose not to believe in the Bible it is entirely in your right but don't try to demean those who do believe in it. I would however like to ask those who do believe in the Bible to stop referring to the pope as the Holy Father...T­here is one Holy Father and that would be God himself.

[GeoLee]

Which Bible, which version, which translatio­n...? Which books of the Bible? Until those questions can be answered and agreed upon by all who say they are Christian, how do we know which is the authoritative word?

[klmebane]

are you saying feminism is the reason some women abuse underage males? does that mean misogyny is the reason men abuse underage females? and when you say underage, what do you mean exactly? are we talking about true children, or young adults in high school?

anyone who abuses children or takes advantage of young people is sick. it has nothing to do with feminism or masculinity.

[justice4juveniles]

our society sentences young males from ages 12,13,14,15, 16, & 17 to adult prison where they are twice as likely to be beaten, 7 times as likely to commit suicide and 5 times as likely to be sexually abused by other inmates and guards and are treated as adults for the purpose of education and treatment, which generally means nil and none. One minute they are children (subject to sexual abuse by older females and need to be protected from those evil beings) and the next minute they have leapfrogged into adulthood equipped to handle adult prison which includes sexual abuse by adult inmates. Do we really care or does it just matter when it is a good political or religious argument or some other law and order rhetoric.

[mckenna]

I think he simply stated that the Adam/Eve creation story itself was incredible, not Christianity as a whole.

[tandrmcdonald]

Note to konastephen;
I couldn't help but notice the too-conspicuous gender specificity of your God. What proof do you have that God is a male?
Regarding "his" word. Do you honestly think God sat down with a quill and papyrus and wrote the Good Book. If God was as all powerful as the religions of the world claim. God didn't have to.
The Christian Bible, all versions, like all other religious tomes, was written by human beings. The writings included in the canons of the various religions were selected by a self-appointed group of other human beings. The choices were based more on the politics of the time than anything else, least of all the ethos of Jesus Christ.
True Christianity is an interesting concept, few Christian religious leaders or followers exhibit Christ-like qualities or attitudes. Let's begin with humility; you need an intensive remedial course in that one.
From there you make a quantum leap to the increase of adult female sexual abuse of underage males. Cast blame where it belongs, at the perpetrators and get your names straight. It has nothing to do with Gloria Steinem and everything to do with Mary Kay LeTourneau and Debra Lefave.
Frankly, you come across as just another pompous, intellectually constipated religious head case venting his impotent outrage over a world that won't go back to the good old days of the Inquisition, when "real men had real power and used it."
Gramma Rose

[DharamDev]

"The Christian Bible, all versions, like all other religious tomes, was written by human beings."

How can you say this? The Bible was admittedly written by human hands, as was the Koran. However, the Veda are the eternally existing sound of God's breathing and are the form of perfect knowledge, beautifully composed. No one can find any beginning to the Vedas, nor can anyone identify a human author, nor would any human or group of humans be capable of creating such a masterpiece of transcendental knowledge.

Also, as a general comment, there is no point in guessing about God. We can only know what God tells us about Himself -- that's why the Vedas are manifested. From this we can understand that God has unlimited spiritual forms, and of those that are described in the Vedic sruti (knowldge given directly by God), all are male except one. There are also forms of God that appear like divine animals or combinations of animal and humanoid.

[realistic2008]

Speaking of relativism, what is the modern world I ask, is it the one that we know everything there is to know and whatever it is, it is infallible? Jesus not the church have ever made women second class citizens, quite the contrary God has given then the honor and privilege of create life and to be the beings that set the morals and the standards of responsability, love, understanding, compassion and everything sacred in life.
We have enough espiritual and material problems in the world, the Holy Father has more than enough on his plate dealing with the " modern world", one of selfishness, greed and materialism, why do we think he must satisfy insaciable American women ?

[tandrmcdonald]

Note to realistic2008;
How about if you learn to spell before you send your quasi-religious spewage into the real world? If you had a point it was lost in the lousy spelling and worse grammar and punctuation.
If you want to run with the big kids, learn to walk first.
Gramma Rose

[websmith]

This is a religion not a government that can change its positions at will.

You get to decide whether or not you want to be Catholic. You don't get to define the religion.

[mgw]

Exactly, websmith. I'm not even Catholic, but I've found this blog to be extremely offensive. Religion, in my opinion, is not a democracy--you take it, or leave it. This blog is out of line.

[DharamDev]

Very intelligent comment.

[GeoLee]

IN Genesis 1 v 27 it is stated "so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. " In Genesis 2, however, we get the story about God creating man then the Garde n of Eden and then decising that man should not be alone, made woman out of the rib and created woman. So, with the very first two chapters we see incongruence at the very least. Genesis 1 clearly uses the word man to stand for human which is quite distinct from the second, more frequently cited chapter. The only place where dissonance is not allowed is the Catholic's preference to focus on the second chapter which of course makes man the first among many. However since the first chapter clearly says God made man AND women in his image, then clearly man and woman both have the capacity to be representive of God on earth, ergo, should have the possibility of being named Pope. It is time after thousands of years to focus on the FIRST chapter of Genesis rather than mysogyistic views of the second chapter. It was power structure fights long after Jesus was crucified that the "articles" of faith were set in the concrete vaults and minds of the men who now rule the Roman Catholic church. Yes, it is time, but will never happen as long as those making the rules have vested interestes (pun intended) in keeping women out.

[cramos]

Why don't you write a story like that about Muslims you coward....­..afraid some guy will visit

[Sidewhispers]

As Dana Carvey's Church Lady said, "Now who could have inspired this vomit? Could it be....?" Fill in your version of evil. I'm sure you are an apostle of the gospel according to Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.

In your rush to explain a more convenient god, you have condradicted yourself. You say that the Catholic Church has changed with the times, while accusing it of not keeping up with the needs of today. You misquote/misread/ this statement by Cardinal Ratzinger in his defense of the Rome's immutable teachings, "tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching to conform to the practices and prejudices of societies now long gone." What preceded "tossed?" The Pope was condemning the "dictatorship of relativism" in defense of the Church which has held fast to the teachings of Jesus Christ on all of the issues you're kvetching about.

You might be the victim of relativism's major flaw: that all points of view are valid and there are no absolutes; therefore, the point of view which holds that your view is invalid is valid. This craziness begs the need for some Absolute Truth. You can pare down the Gospels any way you wish to conform them to your truth, but they--and Paul's Letters--are the same today as they were when they hit the Barnes and Noble of their time.

On the issue of pedophilic priests: Despise these false messengers not the message.

Are you really serious about Sophia Christ?

[klmebane]

where in the bible does it speak of abortion, i'd love to read that.

[Sidewhispers]

I don't have the chapters and verses at hand now, but God has said in the Bible on more than one occasion, "I formed you in your mother's womb," and "I knew you before I placed you in the womb." And what about Thou Shalt Not Kill and "Suffer little Children to come unto me?" I'm sure there are more prohibitions but you can Google these.

[Locksley]

Pope Should Start "Spiritual Renewal" with Bisexual God, says McElvaine. In other words, give up Jesus as the mediator between God and man, and accept Robert McElvaine as Lord and Savior. Funny, no one asks why the Catholic Church continues to remain in sync with Jesus instead of wavering to the changing tastes of culture. McElvaine, you're just a baby ... grow up.

[KOisGod]

The "people" need a new religion. One based on personal, direct experience of the divinity within them, as Jesus told us to do - 'SEEK YE THE KINGDOM WITHIN'.

The Pope and his INSTITUTION are invested in protecting and continuing the CHURCH, and not teaching the people how to contact the God within.

When the Catholics promote meditation, self realization practices and address the universal laws of karma and reincarnation, then, they'll be able to attract a new generation of followers, who hunger for a deeper reality.

[Locksley]

KOisGod .. thank you for showing us with your screen name and your post that you pretend to be God. We know what to think about people who are not Jesus and claim that - Jesus warned us against you in Matt 24 - false christs and false prophets wd infect Christian life - we were forewarned so we are not afraid of liars like you.

[mckenna]

Way to go, KO. I'm glad that among all the angry, misogynist comments there is one tiny light of hope in yours. Too bad Locksley is so literal---I'm sure you are not aspiring to become a false priest. Declaring that we ourselves are God is an expression of the divinity within ourselves, our inter-connected divinity to each other. I agree with you, KO, that more prayer and sprituality is needed more than EVER--but not necessarily under the dogma/propaganda of the Catholic Church.

[DharamDev]

"Declaring that we ourselves are God is an expression of the divinity within ourselves, our inter-connected divinity to each other."

Your definition of God is not standard. Ordinary living creatures are not God. We are part and parcel of God, of the same spiritual nature but very small. Just as a drop of ocean has the same taste as the complete ocean but cannot otherwise act like the ocean, you are spiritual but you cannot do what God does.

[aspen]

The Catholic Church and I parted company a long ,long time ago. Even as a young teenager, I had problems with the infallibility thing. It makes me absolutely ill to see Bush and the Pope together, both embodiments of what has gone wrong in the world. You would think the Pope was the second coming of Christ. The Church (cult) still clings to contraception as a sin and celibate priests. How has that worked out??? High birth rates in the poorest of countries and sexually out of control priests are hardly desireable outcomes.

[sunshineejc]

True, one of the differences between The Catholic Church and The Evangelical Church is contraception. Interesting enough the Bible talks about a false humility involving men forbidding to marry. I wonder who that is? But instead of burning their desire they look for easy prey.

[Locksley]

Even as a young teenager, I had problems with the infallibility thing. - Understood, since you were raised under the liberal dogma of relativism - if you don't like something, you should not be forced to believe it. Let's suppose for a moment that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God then He must have discerned a manner in which to convey His teaching to the world. Jesus never commanded anyone to write anything down when He was here with His apostles. He commanded them to preach. But, from the very beginning, people started preaching NEW ideas about Jesus - that He was not really a man, but only divine (Gnosticism) along with other ideas. Now, it made a difference to the people who got around to writing the Gospels - Paul also made sure to let it be know that Jesus was really a human being as well as divine. People cared about truth. Relativism does not care about truth, just about "feelings". Logic means nothing to relativists. They believe only in emotionalism - if it makes be feel good, I want to be able to continue doing anything I want. The problem is that you got a rotten Catholic education. I am sorry for you.

[mpell]

"If you don't like something, you should not be FORCED to believe it?" If belief comes from within, how can you force anyone to believe anything? We may outwardly behave as if we believe something, if coerced by those who have power over us, but our inner beliefs are the most intimate freedom we have.

[aspen]

My turning away from the Catholic Church had nothing to do with feelings, liberal relativism, or wanting to lead a hedonistic lifestyle. It had more to do with not believing the basic dogma of the Church. It has to do with the all powerful "faith" one is required to have. I just did not have unquestioning faith and have a preference for empirical facts. Anyone who knows me , I am sure would say I have led an above average moral life to the point of being boring. You make it sound as though I rejected Catholicism so I could lead some sort of wild and indulgent life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am far more monastic than those unquestioning, true believing Catholic priests who molested children and many other lay Catholics I have run into.

Further, you have no idea what sort of Catholic education I got. I would say it was just your typical, average, run of the mill Catholicism that requires a whole lot of unquestioning blind "faith". I get along fine with people who accept that, but please don't push it on me or make assertions that I am a moral relativist living a "feel good" lifestyle because I reject Catholicism. Save your pity for someone who needs it. I am quite comfortable in my own skin.

[sunshineejc]

Every-ones revision of history is formed in the eye of the beholder to strengthen arguments that usually have no merit.

When you openly do not ascribe the proper authority of scripture as the in breathed Word of God, you at least loose those of the Reformation led By Martin Luther who broke away from the Church of Rome. Those Catholics who were left behind may be willing to listen to you since many of them are like minded. The reformation was about doctrine-not something that percolated in the secular 60's.

This is not a social matter. This is why there must be a clear separation of church and State. What in the world makes you think you can publicly comment on Biblical Doctrine. I do not see any one else doing that!

By the way, even though God is not limited, Jesus ALWAYS referred to HIM as "MY FATHER IN HEAVEN". The Bible teaches that the head of the woman is the man! The Bible also says a woman is to be quite in Church and learn from her husband at home. Certainly many do no like to hear this and because of that make excuses not to believe them. This is what faith is all about. Faith comes by hearing, hearing by The Word Of God. Today a lack of faith is tolerated. Isn't God Great when he allows you to spew your lies about Him, given the fact He has your breath in His hand.

[Locksley]

Every-ones revision of history is formed in the eye of the beholder to strengthen arguments that usually have no merit. - this is why Benedict XVI bid us beware the dictatorship of relativism - which is what you preach. Thanks for your relativistic post - we were warned against folks like you who waver in the wind.

[sunshineejc]

What-Does anyone understand what Locksley is saying or is it interplanetarian?

[CRGirl30]

I would guess the fact that we live in a country with freedom would be the reason that the author thinks that he can publicly comment on biblical doctrine. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press are all in the Bill of Rights.

Why on earth do you think that only people who believe that they have a friend in the clouds can comment on biblical doctrine? If you do not see others questioning, you might need to get out more.

[sunshineejc]

It has nothing to do with a friend in the clouds whatever that means but everything to do with being Qualified to speak about Biblical Doctrine. Those people are called Pastors who head congregations and teach the word of God from a pulpit. Even the Catholic Priests attend Seminary like Evangelical Pastors to Qualify themselves to teach God's Word.

[klmebane]

so women shouldn't go to school cuz men know it all and will teach them what they deem them worthy of knowing? sorry. but the bible was written by men, not god, and it wasn't put to paper until some 300 years after jesus died. that's a LONG game of telephone. they could've got things totally screwed up in that amount of time. you know what would be funny? if god really existed and he's just sitting up in the sky shaking his head at what "faith" has turned into.

[jdkjdk]

This poster is Catholic and attends Mass every week.

It seems to me that the McElvaine as well as all of the posters need to identify their religious background and current practices, so that the full understanding of potential bias can be understood.

I have never understood why the Catholic faith gets to be theologically analyzed in mainstream media primarily by people who do not claim to be Catholic or if nominally Catholic whose "catholicism" isn't actually practiced. (Obviously, there are more obligations that simply going to Mass, but if you are nominally catholic but don't go to Mass every week that that reveals something.­)

All it does is bring to the fore the peculiar and obviously ongoing American tolerance of anti-catholicism.

[BobOnThis]

Religion..­. especially orthodox catholicism is pure delusion, quackery, and priestcraf­t... more akin to mental masterbation then reason!

Besides... what ever happened to monotheism­... a policy the church zealously killed tens, if not 100's, of thousands of non-believers.

With jesus's ressurrection he became another god (God Jr.), and what's up with the 'holy ghost', cherubs, and other such non-sense? Does that make three godly deities? Sound like polytheism to me!

Just Say NO to God's & Governments!
They are the 2 greatest antagonists to a free, modern, egilitarian society!

Something the purveyors of God's & Gov'ts will kill or incarcearate you for should you disagree with their dogmatic schism gism.

[Locksley]

Another product of US Public Schools - this post is worthy of no further recognition. Bigotry runs wild and needs hate to feed on.

[GAEL1]

People are entitled to believe what they believe, be they Christian of any denomination or Muslim of any denomination. They are not entitled to impose their beliefs on those who do not share their beliefs.

History teaches us the consequences wrought by religious self-righteous adherents of any faith - dispossession, torture and murder of suspected of non-believers. From time to time, all Christian and all Muslim denominations have taken turns hunting down those, who don't buy into the "One True Faith".

[Fathoms]

I think what you are really trying to say is Pansexual God.

[justice4juveniles]

has anyone seen "The Magdalene Sisters"? Case closed.

[Locksley]

Right - Every movie ever made is completely based on historical fact and movies are never driven by liberal agendas that seeks to vilify anything Catholic. justics4 - thanks for showing that you get your culture off a theatre screen instead of the fruit of actual research. Another candidate for the Disgust room!

[CRGirl30]

Right - anything that doesn't fit into your world view is obviously wrong. I'm guessing you never watched the film - or the interviews with the real girls that made it out of that terrible facility.

[mckenna]

I agree that we should not be getting all our information from movies, but the movie is based on a very well-known book,written about factual events. There is no problem with referencing a movie, since most people don't ever seem to read anymore.

[justice4juveniles]

"The Magdalene Sisters" was a Canadian movie having taken place there. Some of it was made up I sure, but was based on a true story; even so, the premise was the scary part. The reasons these girls ended up where they were and the basic motive behind everything, was the sickness of the Catholic Church. I didn't see a political agenda when I watched it and seemed to be presented artistically and truthfully.

You sure like the insults don't you Locksley? I never thought about a liberal agenda when I watched the movie. It didn't seem to have a political message at all. I grew up in Chicago, I don't get my culture from a theater screen. Chicago is a world class city where I have been exposed to much culture and have always appreciated the fact that I live right in the middle of it; I thank my parents and grandparents for that and always including museums, cultural events and the arts and music in my upbringing. I'd say it was a well-rounded exposure of all the culture Chicago has to offer, not just the theater.

Btw, what is the disgust room? I wonder if I would like it? If it is absent mean insulting people like you, I probably would enjoy having lunch there.