Playboy apologises

Are you offended by this magazine cover?
I am not. All I see is the typical Playboy cover; a suggestively clad woman with enough exposed skin to be scandalous, yet enough covered skin to be permissibly printed on the cover.

I do not see the need for Playboy Enterprises Inc. to apologise. Is not every single Playboy cover offensive to a group of people? Why single out Mexican Catholics as worthy of an apology?

Let’s get it on… Let them eat cake!

Let’s get it on…
I know this is another article about pastors and sex, but I could not resist commenting on Reverend Ed Young’s advice. Simply put, Rev. Young believes it is time to “put God back in the bed” by means of a week of “congregational copulation”.

Before you call up your fellow parishoners and set up a holy orgy, I should clarify that the reverend’s advice is intended to help promote and improve monogamous marriage (sorry Utah). He delivered this message in front of and on a large bed. To really bring the point home, his wife was with him in jeans and **GASP** knee high black boots.

In all earnestness, the message is not completely silly. I do believe that a healthy sex life is vital in any relationship. The key in it, however, is that the sex should be fun and spontaneous, not forced. If you need orders from a reverend to have a reason to want to have sex with your partner, then you have issues that a week of pastor-prescribed fornication most likely will not solve.

Let them eat cake!
Unsurprisingly, this advice is aimed solely at married members of the congregation. I think it is a safe bet that one could extend that description to heterosexual, married members. The reverend went all Marie Antoinette on everyone else. His exact words:

I don’t know, try eating chocolate cake.

Er, excusez-moi? He did not just compare sex to chocolate cake, did he? Oh, yes he did. You hear that Lindsay Lohan? When you get an urge to do the mattress mambo, head to the kitchen for some chocolate cake instead.

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.

Gay Gay Gay

Gay TV
All I seem to be running into today is news linked to homosexuality. A new gay television channel called Timm was launched last Saturday here in Germany. It struck me as odd that Germany, a country seemingly more accommodating towards it homosexual population than countries such as the US, launched a channel created specifically for them later than the US. What particularly piqued my interest is the channel’s slogan – “Wir lieben männer”, which translates to “We love men”. Whatever happened to lesbians? Are they not gay as well? If the induction of such a channel was done in the interest of general inclusion in the world of television, I believe that should have been reflected in their slogan.

Gay on TV
My enthusiasm for Grey’s Anatomy has been wavering this past season, but I was happy when the show introduced homosexual relationships into its storylines. Portraying normal, ordinary people in homosexual relationships on screen is a wonderful way to counter the obtuse belief some have that homosexuality is an aberration. For that reason, I am annoyed that Brooke Smith has been written off the show. (Her character, Dr. Hahn, was exploring her homosexuality with Dr. Torres, played by Sara Ramirez.)

The official reason behind her dismissal is that the character was not received well by the majority of the viewership. Many people believe this to be a prevarication and feel the producers have submitted to the will of homophobic America. Whatever the rationale, I mourn the exit of a storyline that finally entered territory that is, for the most part, woefully unexplored on mainstream television.

Gay in Real Life
Arizona, California and Florida have taken a big step forward with America in the election of Barack Obama for President. They, however, have taken a big step back when they became part of thirty states that ban same-sex marriage. Arkansas has also passed a measure banning parents in homosexual relationships from adopting children.

This has been called a victory for religious conservatives. That very description exemplifies why such bans should not even be pursued at all - the propositions were put forth by religious conservatives, who appear to enjoy scorning the principle of the separation of church and state.

I do not agree that issues surrounding homosexuality should be left to be dealt with separately in each state. I believe politicians take this stance with the sole purpose of avoiding disapproval in certain states. There should be a country-wide acceptance, not intolerance, of homosexuals, and because the rejection claims it roots in religious belief, there should be no place in the law for such discrimination.