Open to anything but sex

The Catholic Church is not always behind the times. In fact, it has a history of reversing aspects of its doctrine to keep up with the zeitgeist. It renounced usury in the 16th century, slavery in the 19th century and capital punishment in 1995.

When it comes to matters concerning sex, however, the Church shows no indication of budging. Be it marriage of members of the clergy (after having been ordained), homosexual marriage and intercourse or artificial contraception, the Church says NO.

Mandatory celibacy was not always a must for those wishing to dedicate their lives to the Church – it was made universal Church law only by the Second Consilium of Lateran in 1139. Despite that, there are exceptions. Men who are married before entering priesthood can do so and maintain their marriage. Is the devotion of an unmarried, celibate priest worth more than that of a married one? With fewer men entering into priesthood whilst the global Catholic population grows, will allowing young priests to marry not help to stop this shortfall? The Church says NO.

I am sure that there are those who will quote scripture forbidding homosexual marriage and intercourse. To them I say – I am sure many scripture-quoting individuals have coveted a neighbour’s wife. Amongst all the adultery, murder, lying and stealing, why pick the homosexuality guideline to stick to so closely? Is it not more Christian to grant everybody a legal relationship of mutual love, care and affection? The Church says NO.

Even more pressing is the rejection of artificial contraception. The Church cannot ignore the physical suffering from the AIDS epidemic in Africa, or the uncontrolled population increase in the Philippines, where it still has an overwhelming influence on daily politics. The means to limit the effects of either dilemma giving rise to a more hopeful generation are so simple. And yet, the Church says NO.

On Bishops, Politicians and a tiny bit of bread

I recently came across this article about the aggressiveness coming from the Catholic Church in the Philippines (an overwhelmingly Catholic nation) against the proposed family planning bill, which would require the government to promote artificial contraception.

I could write about the irony. How the Church, who cares for all of the Lord’s people, would allow them to dig themselves into an even deeper hole, instead of allowing legislation to pass that might help provide desperately necessary population growth control. I could write about the families left in abject poverty due to the Catholic abstinence-only dogma. I could write about the deeper problems with the church’s insistence on over-stepping the constitutionally prescribed separation of church and state.

Instead, I would like to address the bishops’ threats of refusing the Eucharist to politicians who support the bill. It seems to be the common Modus Operandi for meddling clergymen.

In Catholicism, one cannot accept the Host whilst in a state of mortal sin. Doing so would compound the transgression, causing eternal damnation. The theological process of transubstantiation gives weight to the argument. In refusing to serve the Host, the clergy is saving souls. Hence, they believe it is their duty to refuse. If this were the full extent of the refusal, all would be well.

Unfortunately, more appears to be at stake. Taking my previous thought further: if said sinner were to go to confession before mass and receive absolution, theoretically he/she cannot be refused communion.

How can anyone then refuse the Eucharist if absolution is already granted? The Church already knows that if any of the involved politicians receive absolution, they are fully eligible for the Eucharist, making this threat unenforceable. So what is it about?

These bishops are entering dangerous ground. Are they spitefully inducing the wrath of God to prevent this bill from going through? Is the Catholic Church prepared to play for politics and influence on the backs of impoverished and malnourished individuals? I certainly hope not.