Catholic men revere women–as long as you happen to be the right kind of women. If you’re a nun, you’re put on a pedestal. If you’re the BVM, you’re put on a pedestal.
Conversely, if a Protestant has the temerity to satirize this aspect of Catholic piety, devout Catholics react as if you were satirizing their own mother or sister.
That may sound very chivalrous and all, but it also fosters a very bifurcated view of women. For Catholic culture tends to swing back and forth between viewing women as saints and woman as whores–without much in-between.
For example, I don’t find Catholic men rising up in arms when Italian directors depict ordinary women in slutty terms. I don’t see the Vatican or the Conference of Bishops calling on the faithful to boycott Fellini films–to take one example.
If a director did that with a nun, that’s sacrilege–but if it’s the girl-next-door, well, that’s art.
I remember once reading a transcript of a radio talk show host interviewing the late Franco Corelli. I read it to see what Corelli had to say about vocal technique, as well as his professional opinion of other famous tenors.
But as it turned out, in the course of the interviewer, the host also asked him some questions about his life and career. Corelli volunteered that, as a young man, he used to frequent the local brothels. He said this without any tinge of shame or regret.
As I recall, this interview was originally broadcast live on a New York radio station. Yet there was no self-consciousness on his part that perhaps, just perhaps, frequenting with prostitutes isn’t entirely commendable behavior.
And this didn’t hinder him from recording different settings of the Ave Maria.
For him, the convent was one thing, the whorehouse another–and each had its place as long as you didn’t confuse the sign on the door.
For him, there were the “good” women (Mary, nuns), and then there were all the rest. I’m sure he’d make an exception for his own mother or sister–but not for your sister.
Catholic piety fosters a two-story morality: a nunnery or monastery on the second floor, but downstairs is another story–in more ways than one.
The Catholic Church condones whore houses and treats women who are not nuns (or the BVM) as whores?
ReplyDeleteThis is your apologetic work for the day?
Just checking.
Sorry Steve,
ReplyDeleteThis argument doesn't quite work.
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete"The Catholic Church condones whore houses and treats women who are not nuns (or the BVM) as whores? This is your apologetic work for the day? "
No, it's your misstatement of the argument.
"Just checking."
Time to check out.
Truth Unites... and Divides said...
ReplyDelete"Sorry Steve, This argument doesn't quite work."
It does more work than your nonargument.
Steve Hays: "...it [Catholicism] also fosters a very bifurcated view of women. For Catholic culture tends to swing back and forth between viewing women as saints and woman as whores–without much in-between."
ReplyDeleteIt's this claim of yours that Catholicism fosters "a very bifurcated view of women" that doesn't work. Citing the lone example of Corelli isn't sufficient to support your contention.
Please don't get mad.
TUAD,
ReplyDeleteYou're confusing an illustration with a demonstration. And there was more to the post than my illustration.
They bifurcate, until, of course, they too, give place to their lower base nature and start hiding the fruits! :(
ReplyDeleteTUAD, I believe it worked, for me. :)
By the way, what condition do you have to be in when you enter into that work that leads to becoming a Nun or Priest?
As the BVM?
I'm not sure it's a gender issue, per se, but more of a sexuality issue. The most revered within Church history are generally celibates (although there may be a few married saints in its history).
ReplyDeleteAlthough the encyclicals do treat marriage as a sacred state, the general attitude is that being celibate is simply a holier and loftier calling (not just "different").
In the minds of the faithful, it's thus hard to not equate that messy sexuality business (even in marriage) with a personal failing of some sort. Of course, human nature being what it is, it's pretty difficult to eliminate that element from one's life completely (if not impossible for many). So, a despair of sorts sets in. You admire the celibate, but recognize you're among the lowly who will probably not live that way for your entire life.
It's kind of like the dieter who, unable to eat only grilled chicken and broccoli, goes on a bender and eats three pizzas. In this case, the "forbidden pie" in question is sex.
I must say, though, that these attitudes aren't unscriptural. Paul told the widows they should remain as such, and he also recommended that people be as he was (unmarried). He also gave less than a ringing endorsement of marriage when he stated that "it's better to marry than to burn".
Robert,
ReplyDeleteOf course Paul gave that advice in light of the upcoming seige of Jersualem, in which case it was much better to be single than to have family obligations, given the persecution they were about to face. He wasn't saying what the normal ideal would be.
BTW, it would be helpful for people to remember that when God looked at the perfect man located in the perfect place, He said: "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper comparable to him."
ReplyDeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing "lowly" or less holy about marriage. God instituted marriage with Adam and Eve. And he commanded his people to be fruitful and multiply, which of course meant marriage. Paul also said you "do well" to marry. And of course Peter and most other Apostles were married.
Paul's reaons for preferring the single life were clear and limited to practical considerations. He said, "those who marry will have worldly troubles" (1 Cor. 7:28), while the unmarried can have undivided devotion to the Lord (vv.32-35). But he also recognized that "each has his own gift from God." Some do better married than single (hence the comment about burning with passion).
The point being that it is not the state of celibacy or marriage that makes one more or less holy, as if God prefers a particular condition. Rather, it is how one worships and serves the Lord, whether married or single.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteGood points, but Paul was writing to the Corinthian church, so he may have had persecution in general in mind ("this is what I mean brothers: the appointed time has grown very short" (1 Cor.7:29)), but not likely the seige of Jerusalem.
One of most clear-cut examples of having to choose between the authority of Holy Scriptures and that of "church fathers" is the issue of clerical celibacy. For in pastoral epistles, Paul teaches that it's a good thing for a bishop to be married.
ReplyDeleteBut early on, Christian writers just began to outright oppose this idea, and more and more reprobate clerical marriage. Thus we are simply forced to conclude that "the church fathers" succumbed to an un-Biblical delusion in this regard.
Louis,
ReplyDeleteYou are technically correct, although I didn't mean it that way. I spoke generally, as in using one event to summarize an entire time period. It would be like if Paul was writing in the early 20th Century to the church in the Philipines and I said, "Of course Paul gave that advice in light of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor." Obviously, Pearl Harbor wasn't in the Philipines, but we (Americans, at least) use that event as a landmark for the entirety of the Pacific theater, and sometimes for World War II as a whole.
So to be clear (which I should have done the first time): what I meant was the Paul was writing about the persecution that faced the entire church, that began roughly during the reign of Nero and extended, off and on, for the next 300 years, of which the most historically significant feature was the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Viisaus said:
ReplyDeleteFor in pastoral epistles, Paul teaches that it's a good thing for a bishop to be married.
I should think that it's not only a good thing, but it's part of the job description he lays out for elders.