Another Catholic moment…
In the New York Times (11-9-2008) an article appeared titled “THE PERILOUS INTERSECTION OF ART & RELIGION” by Clark Hoyt and concerned a Broadway or off Broadway play entitled “CHORPUS CHRISTI” by Terrence McNally.
The play is not new but the first time it was to be produced it drew death threats and threats of bombing of such intensity that the play was cancelled out of fear.
The play portrays Jesus as a gay man that had sex with his gay apostles but other than that conducted himself according to the Gospel stories in the New Testament.
This time around, there were no death threats but there was condemnation of the play by the Catholic Church but also anger at the New York Times for even reviewing the play; favorably at that.
A play is considered a “work of art” and is an expression of the artist and may or may not be liked by all but hey, it’s his expression and he has the freedom, by law, to express it.
What is the Church objecting to? Well, the Church considers homosexuality a sin and therefore cannot have its main man a homosexual even though the Catholic priesthood is reported to be rife with homosexuals attracted to the priesthood for obvious reasons (pedophiles are also attracted to the priesthood for obvious reasons).
BUT the Church’s official objection stated that it is IRREVERANT TO DEPICT JESUS AS SEXUALLY ACTIVE WITH ANYONE. This made me stop and think.
The Church objects to Jesus having sex? OK, maybe sex outside of marriage? I don’t think those rules applied in those days and remember, there was no Catholic Church to make rules in those days.
Does it have something to do with priestly celibacy? If Jesus was sexually active does their insistence on priestly celibacy take a nosedive? I think historically, priests were allowed to marry but abstain from sexual acts during certain times (remain ritually pure) but when rich bishops started leaving Church property to their heirs, the Church ended the practice and celibacy became the law of the land.
The Church has a hard time defending their “tradition” of priestly celibacy. They keep referencing St. Paul but he did not know Jesus and really did not know much about Jesus so if he counseled celibacy it is because of his own weirdness.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE about Jesus or his life. All we have are Gospel accounts which are theological pieces and not historical pieces so we have no idea if Jesus was married or had sex or children etc.
When the DaVinci Code book and movie came out there was a big hubbub about Jesus, his wife Magdalene and his child. I remember clergy being interviewed about the subject of Jesus’ marital status and the answer was always “we just don’t know – everything is possible”.
So getting back to the play; what does the Catholic Church object to and why?
In the New York Times (11-9-2008) an article appeared titled “THE PERILOUS INTERSECTION OF ART & RELIGION” by Clark Hoyt and concerned a Broadway or off Broadway play entitled “CHORPUS CHRISTI” by Terrence McNally.
The play is not new but the first time it was to be produced it drew death threats and threats of bombing of such intensity that the play was cancelled out of fear.
The play portrays Jesus as a gay man that had sex with his gay apostles but other than that conducted himself according to the Gospel stories in the New Testament.
This time around, there were no death threats but there was condemnation of the play by the Catholic Church but also anger at the New York Times for even reviewing the play; favorably at that.
A play is considered a “work of art” and is an expression of the artist and may or may not be liked by all but hey, it’s his expression and he has the freedom, by law, to express it.
What is the Church objecting to? Well, the Church considers homosexuality a sin and therefore cannot have its main man a homosexual even though the Catholic priesthood is reported to be rife with homosexuals attracted to the priesthood for obvious reasons (pedophiles are also attracted to the priesthood for obvious reasons).
BUT the Church’s official objection stated that it is IRREVERANT TO DEPICT JESUS AS SEXUALLY ACTIVE WITH ANYONE. This made me stop and think.
The Church objects to Jesus having sex? OK, maybe sex outside of marriage? I don’t think those rules applied in those days and remember, there was no Catholic Church to make rules in those days.
Does it have something to do with priestly celibacy? If Jesus was sexually active does their insistence on priestly celibacy take a nosedive? I think historically, priests were allowed to marry but abstain from sexual acts during certain times (remain ritually pure) but when rich bishops started leaving Church property to their heirs, the Church ended the practice and celibacy became the law of the land.
The Church has a hard time defending their “tradition” of priestly celibacy. They keep referencing St. Paul but he did not know Jesus and really did not know much about Jesus so if he counseled celibacy it is because of his own weirdness.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE about Jesus or his life. All we have are Gospel accounts which are theological pieces and not historical pieces so we have no idea if Jesus was married or had sex or children etc.
When the DaVinci Code book and movie came out there was a big hubbub about Jesus, his wife Magdalene and his child. I remember clergy being interviewed about the subject of Jesus’ marital status and the answer was always “we just don’t know – everything is possible”.
So getting back to the play; what does the Catholic Church object to and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment