|
December 23, 2005
Suffocating Mary
Let me begin with a disclaimer: I consider myself a non-practicing atheist. (i.e., I don't believe in gods, but I'm not evangelical about.) What follows is only logical. A british artist has pulled one over on the Jesuits at America (a Catholic weekly magazine), buying an ad for a sculpture of the Virgin Mary in a condom (described as a 'latex veil'). Many will consider the artist's motive just, as he clearly does: The artist, British-based Steve Rosenthal, said in a media e-mail on Thursday, "The primary aim of the work is to highlight the Vatican's continuance of non-advocation regarding the use of condoms and I conceived America magazine to be the most suitable place to contextualize the work outside of the gallery space and produce a dialogue." Let me parse part of what Rosenthal said. 'Continuance of non-advocation regarding the use of condoms' is, stated another way, 'failure to advocate condom use.' The complaint appears to be that the Catholic Church doesn't actively take an advocacy position on the promotion of condom use. But is that really what the Catholic Church should be doing? Isn't that asking the Church to cease being the Church? Marriage ('Holy Matrimony') is one of the seven sacraments which Catholics believe were instituted by Christ as the basis of the New Law. They believe that Jesus writes the the New Law 'on the hearts' of the faithful, as he said in the Sermon on the Mount. It, and its sacraments, are thus part and parcel of Catholic faith. Why do I bring this up? Because Catholics also believe that sex has no place outside of 'Holy Matrimony,' the greater purpose of which is the salvation of others (i.e., one's family). The purpose of sex within the context of Catholic marriage, then, is to make more Catholics. Incidentally, the sacrament of marriage is believed to restore the natural union of man of woman as found before 'the fall.' Catholics believe that sin introduced lust. You might as well lobby the Church to promote masturbating to internet porn: while most of us see the difference, Catholocism doesn't. And so it is completely out of the realm of possibility for the Catholic Church to advocate any kind of sexual activity beyond that outlined in one of its core sacraments. To do so would be to deny the importance of its own beliefs. It would tell the fold 'aim high, but don't sweat it if you miss.' That's why we in the West don't allow religious law to write the state's laws (i.e., there is no equivalent to the Muslim application of Sharia). The rest of us don't accept the Catholic sacraments, and we don't need the help of those who do in order to address issues outside their highly restrictive moral code. Our answer is condoms; their answer is not to have sex, and they can't have any other. Which explains the title of this post: the imagery of the condom on the Virgin Mary was meant to convey something quite different, but I think it's best interpreted as symbolizing an attempt by non-Catholics (or even Catholics who defy or misunderstand the sacraments) to suffocate the Church by removing its most sacred beliefs. What goes for 'offensive' TV goes also for churches: 'If you don't like it, change the channel.' If you don't accept a church's beliefs, don't join it. None of this, however, addresses what might be a legitimate issue, and that's whether the Church contributes to the spread of disease by actively opposing those who advocate condom use, particularly in the developing world. Is that the case, and if so what do you do about it? posted by Dennis on 12.23.05 at 01:54 PM
Comments
Thanks for the comment. I've always been puzzled by the anger and disgust of people who oppose the Church's position. It would only be justified if the Church were busy slapping condoms out of people's hands. That never seemed realistic to me. Their real crime, it seems, is not letting Catholics who defy the sacraments off the hook. Come on, Church! Get with the times. Dennis · December 23, 2005 05:15 PM Dennis, thanks. I understand your first two paragraphs. But I don't quite get your last paragraph. Whose real crime? And how should the Church "get with the times"? rodander · December 23, 2005 05:30 PM That's 'point of view' (or what they call in lit crit these days 'focalization') and sarcasm. The 'crime' is noted in the eyes of those who attack the Church. I thought the spirit of the whole thing would make that clear. Ditto for 'get with the times.' That's what critics of the Church want to say: 'Come on ... it's the 21st century ... quit being all -- churchy.' Dennis · December 23, 2005 06:30 PM None of this, however, addresses what might be a legitimate issue, and that's whether the Church contributes to the spread of disease by actively opposing those who advocate condom use, particularly in the developing world. As to the issue of whether church teachings are contributing to the spread of disease that is dubious. What is spreading disease is uncontrolled behavior. Were said church teachings to be practiced, it would result in a REDUCTION of sexually transmitted disease, and indeed this was the case in many instances before the rise of more promiscuous behavior and before modern condoms and effective modern contraceptive technology. Sexually transmitted diseases began to rise with increasing frequency of sexual activity outside of marriage, beginning in the 1960s as people lost their old fashioned "hang ups". As Church teachings emphasize again and again, actions have consequences. As one article puts it: D"uring the 1970s, syphilis and gonorrhea were the two dominant STDs. The picture changed dramatically in the 1980s with a dramatic increase in genital herpes -- which has no known cure -- and the 1982 discovery of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, which transformed casual sex from a pleasurable pastime into a high-risk sport." The lesson is pretty clear from this histroy, but many do not want to accept it. Naturally, they must pay the price for their choices.
What about people now have no intention of changing their behavior? Personally, I agree with the government of Uganda in doing what it takes to cut infection rates. That is fine and I think the churchs should recognize that in such emergency situations tough measures are called for to save lives. Nevertheless, the Church is not wrong in pointing out that again, the core issue is behavior. Widespread condom use may temporarily cut infection but unless the underlying behavior is addressed, STDs will continue to increase and mutate as has been the case of the once fading syphilis and gonorrhea, along with worrisome rises of new strains of HIV. See http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7007. Condom use also has a lot of collateral damage. As writer Nathan Tabor puts it: It is of course much easier to posture with gestures and symbols rather than address such harsh realities. Somehow so-called promoters of "dialog" do little to address the long trail of damaged lives and harsh consequences caused by behavior. It is much easier and more self-gratifying to posture. Many have the idea that judicious use of condoms will enable them and society to escape the consequences of their behavior. They are sorely mistaken. Actions have consequences, unpalatable as this may be to those who seek "dialog" through "art". Enrique Cardova · December 23, 2005 08:36 PM I agree to a point, but I don't consider disease to be caused by behavior (i.e., sex only leads to disease when you have it with someone who already has the disease). I don't see anything morally wrong with sex of any kind between consenting adults. I think the debate over condoms is a phantom game that draws attention away from what all sides (aside from maybe the Leon Kasses of the world) can agree on: that curing diseases is a good thing. I also believe that it is within man's power to conquer disease and within his rights to act outside the biological imperative to procreate. While I'm monogamous and probably quite conservative in my own bedroom, I have no objection to what other people do. And I recognize that my own restraint is still sinful to the Church, and still subjects me to the threat of disease from a potential partner's past. Dennis · December 23, 2005 09:25 PM The evolution of human beings doesn't take into account rampant promiscuity. We are creating a kind of muck soup that is deadly. It doesn't matter what the next disease is, and there will be more, but it will learn to spread around condoms (as do things like genital warts and chlamydia). Even in the 1980s scientists were noticing that Gonorrhea and Syphilis were becoming much more resistant to traditional antibiotics because since it was curable, people became very blaze about it. Super strains of theses STDs were starting to appear. These things are going to happen. That's how nature works. Diseases evolve like everything else and eventually they'll beat the condom/antibiotic barrier. Sorry to be the Harbinger, but the only thing that will prevent one of these strains from becoming airborne is for people to accept that EVERYTHING you do between consenting adults is not Kosher. It has consequences (deadly ones) to the general public. Religion is simply the recording of observable trends. The fact that they associated a divine or spiritual hand in the matter doesn't negate what they observed. Societies long observed that promiscuity was bad for society so they set about to make rules to control it. Nothing has changed. We see the same evidence, but we're supposed to be smarter. Clearly, we're not. You can apply this argument to the hemophiliacs who weren't engaging in risky behavior, but every single one of them died as a result of the tainted blood supply with HIV. They had no choice in the matter. They were not the "consenting adults." The behavior of other "consenting adults" lead to their death. What consenting adults do impacts everyone and to deny that is to deny everything that we know and understand about nature. Grand Stand · December 24, 2005 04:51 PM Dennis. Now I get it. You just changed gears on me too fast (from the question in the last para. of the main post to the sarcasm in your response to me). I'm an old man -- you've got to move slowly for me. And I'll agree with you that "curing diseases is a good thing". But not an Ultimately Good thing -- meaning that there are limits to what one ought to do to cure a disease. And we must discuss and debate, and accept, such limits. rodander · December 26, 2005 09:54 AM Once upon a time, a little old Italian lady attended a talk on the evils of birth control given by her parish priest. Partway through his talk she became agitated and stood up, shouting "You no playa da game! You know maka da rules!"Not being Catholic, I can only observe that the issues of birth control and sexuality in general seem to cause some Catholics great anguish; skim Andrew Sullivan's blog as an example. The assumption seems always to be that the church should 'get with it' to accomodate those who don't like some or all of the church's teachings. But if that happened I suspect it wouldn't be the Catholic church anymore. My recommendation echoes Dennis: 'You no lika da rules? You finda nudder church.' [sigh] But it's probably an inability to take that advice, for whatever reason, that leads to the anguish, eh? Swen Swenson · December 27, 2005 11:30 AM Brain cramp! I meant to say: "you no maka da rules, dang it!" Swen Swenson · December 27, 2005 11:39 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
". . . whether the Church contributes to the spread of disease by actively opposing those who advocate condom use, particularly in the developing world."
It doesn't. See Uganda.
http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200506220752.asp
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/News/abcfactsheet.html
Perhaps the question is more correctly posed as: whether those who advocate condom use, particularly in the developing world, contribute to the spread of disease.