E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
While reading up on my apologetics, especially those bits which focus on gay marriage, I was startled by the strong emphasis on what a marriage really means. I accepted it, of course, because it is sound theology and reasoning, but the strength of the belief was at once shocking as it was refreshing, like that cold glass of water in a Louisiana lunchtime.
Then I read up on apologetics related to fornication and adultery, and I found more of the same, consistent teaching. Consistent and sound and again refreshing. Then with abortion was an oblique but strong emphasis on marriage, where I simply expected an affirmation of the importance of life. Once more, more than anyplace else, I saw marriage pop up again when the case for a female deaconate and priesthood was refuted. Even slightly I found marriage crop up when Catholics defend the Church against charges of Mariolatry or that nuns are subservient to priests. This was out of left field more than anything — gender these days is so far removed from sexuality that I hadn’t considered that the position of the Church derived logically from the exact same moral philosophy.
For anyone unfamiliar — and also because I want to make sure I know what I’m talking about — priests are married to Mother Church, and nuns married to Christ. One apologist went so far as to say that if the Church is chauvinist, it is female chauvinist — during the Eucharist, men must behave as women and allow God to enter them, and even more that the most fondly regarded saint in the Church is easily St. Mary, mother of Christ. While feminists decry that Christ, the apostles and all the clergy are men, the teaching of the Church is something like that nuns fulfill a coequal and not inferior or superior role in the Church, as is necessary based on their differing and not inferior or superior job description — bride of Christ rather than married to the Church. Who can say whether John Paul the Great or Mother Theresa did better or more important work? John Paul the Great led the contemplative Marian life as he tended the flock, and Mother Theresa was as dutiful Martha, tending the flock in her own way.
My question: Is there any other sexual symbolism I’m missing, or some I’m getting just plain wrong? It’d be nice to refute the arguments which equate the Church with base male chauvinism, and in an age where sexual intercourse is about as casual as a handshake I’d like to respond fully to charges that the Church hates sex. As I see it, using the appropriate critical lens reveals tasteful sexual symbolism throughout the Church. I’d rather put it correctly, and so I submit to you.
Then I read up on apologetics related to fornication and adultery, and I found more of the same, consistent teaching. Consistent and sound and again refreshing. Then with abortion was an oblique but strong emphasis on marriage, where I simply expected an affirmation of the importance of life. Once more, more than anyplace else, I saw marriage pop up again when the case for a female deaconate and priesthood was refuted. Even slightly I found marriage crop up when Catholics defend the Church against charges of Mariolatry or that nuns are subservient to priests. This was out of left field more than anything — gender these days is so far removed from sexuality that I hadn’t considered that the position of the Church derived logically from the exact same moral philosophy.
For anyone unfamiliar — and also because I want to make sure I know what I’m talking about — priests are married to Mother Church, and nuns married to Christ. One apologist went so far as to say that if the Church is chauvinist, it is female chauvinist — during the Eucharist, men must behave as women and allow God to enter them, and even more that the most fondly regarded saint in the Church is easily St. Mary, mother of Christ. While feminists decry that Christ, the apostles and all the clergy are men, the teaching of the Church is something like that nuns fulfill a coequal and not inferior or superior role in the Church, as is necessary based on their differing and not inferior or superior job description — bride of Christ rather than married to the Church. Who can say whether John Paul the Great or Mother Theresa did better or more important work? John Paul the Great led the contemplative Marian life as he tended the flock, and Mother Theresa was as dutiful Martha, tending the flock in her own way.
My question: Is there any other sexual symbolism I’m missing, or some I’m getting just plain wrong? It’d be nice to refute the arguments which equate the Church with base male chauvinism, and in an age where sexual intercourse is about as casual as a handshake I’d like to respond fully to charges that the Church hates sex. As I see it, using the appropriate critical lens reveals tasteful sexual symbolism throughout the Church. I’d rather put it correctly, and so I submit to you.