Monday, August 5, 2013

MY QUESTIONS ABOUT JOHN'S GOSPEL OR ‘JOHN AS A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM’

Robert Kysar in John, the Maverick Gospel concludes (p. 26) that “[w]e can be grateful to the early church for not excluding the Fourth Gospel from its canon. Had it done so, we would be far poorer.”
This is, I think, the conclusion of the majority of Johannine/biblical scholars regarding John. Now I think that there is a need to examine John, however, as a theological problem because there is a number of issues one can really consider major problems when dealing with the gospel not only in a literary way but more so in a theological way. Some of them can be expressed as: What problems resulted as a result of the tradition (in this context, ‘tradition’ means: the way of recounting Jesus’ life and person) that John began (or continued)? Did John’s focus on Jesus’ identity subvert the intentions of Jesus in his earthly career (Here I refer to the ‘real’ or even the ‘historical’ Jesus)?
Did the focus on Jesus’ identity and the high christology introduce a fundamental warp/distortion upon the “regnocentric” focus of the pre-Easter Jesus?


One specific area I wish to focus on is the following:
Itinerarium mentis (literally, ‘Itinerary of the Mind’ or Process of Development in the Faith)
Hypothesis: John disrupts the itinerarium mentis undergone by the first followers of Jesus
In his gospel, John immediately proclaims that Jesus is the logos, that Jesus is “one with the Father.” However, considering the matter historically, the early Christians reached those conclusions ONLY after a long process. Before they reached a high theology about Jesus, first, they had to encounter the figure of Jesus himself as a human. They had to be exposed to the words and deeds of this charismatic “rabbi” from Nazareth. They had to live with him, follow him, etc.


Now, if this was true of the first followers of Jesus, it cannot be said of communities and individuals who are introduced to Jesus predominantly by means of John’s gospel. John does not respect that long process but short-circuits it by proclaiming at once that Jesus is God “My Lord and my God!”  That’s the problem (for me)!


The Process of Faith
Before Christians everywhere could finally claim that Jesus was somehow divine, it took a long time and a long process of development in their corporate faith after long, arduous and even bloody struggles. When the gospels (especially John) came to be written down, that signaled the end process of a long developmental process.

However, in the case of John, the reader is invited to make a faith decision without respecting the fact that before such a faith decision could be done, one needs to go through a long process by which one encounters Jesus in his humanity, is attracted to this, then, after due discernment, considers Jesus a “prophet” or “rabbi”, then, from there, one makes the leap to consider Jesus as messiah of God and then as closely as possible to the being Israel called YHWH.

In light of all this, how are contemporary readers to make sense of this gospel, which, traditionally, has been the most popular gospel among Christians?

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Astonishing Denigration of Women and Sex from "Great" Christian Teachers

I've been following an article on the website Catholica by Dr. Christopher Geraghty about 'How Catholicism can be Revived" in the 21st century (here). In today's piece about sex and science, I found a compendium of truly astonishing denigratory remarks on women and sex from supposedly "great" Christian teachers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, unfortunately, only a small sampling of a whole history of woman-denigration and even downright misogyny in Christianity, particularly in Catholicism. The full article is found here but here are pertinent quotes.

+++from Geraghty article+++
To understand why our Church is now so hung-up on questions of sexual orientation and behaviour, and on the question of women's role in the institution, we should tune in, at least once in our lifetime, to the twisted minds of Christian leaders like Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian [ca 160-225]Gregory of Nazianzan [329-389]Augustine [354-430]John Chrysostom [ca 347-407]Thomas Aquinas [ca 1225-1274]Albert the Great [ca 1200-1280]as they talk disrespectfully about women, about bodies and sexual activity. We should try to fathom the world these men inhabited. Once you have read the authors, you will be in no doubt as to why our Church has persisted in imposing on us, by rules, by teachings, solemn declarations and condemnations, such an unholy misogynistic culture, such pruriet attitudes which prevents her from saying anything meaningful to the modern world.
Tertullian"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You so carelessly destroyed man, God's image. On account of your desert, even the Son of God had to die". [TertullianDe Cultu Feminarum Libri Duo, bk 1, ch. 1, PL vol. 1 cols 1417-1419. Cfr. On the Apparel of Women, ch. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Christian Literature Publishing Co., New York, 1885, p 14]
St Gregory of Nazianzan"Fierce are the dragons and cunning the asps, but women have the malice of both beasts" [Gregory of NazianzanPoemata Moralia 32 vv 117-118, Patrologia Graeca (J.P.Migne) vol 37 col.925]
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother? It is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman ... If it was good company and conversation that Adam needed, it would have been much better arranged to have two men together as friends, not a man and a woman." [St Augustine of HippoDe Genesi ad litteram, Bk 9 ch 5, PL vol. 34 col. 396. Cfr. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor SJ., vol. II, Newman Press, New York, 1982, p.75.]
This popular theme of the pub mates, club comrades, lodges and football teams was taken up later, in the thirteenth century, by theologians and scholars such as Albert the Great and Thomas AquinasBoth tried to persuade their students that women were good for procreation and that once that work was done, their usefulness was limited. For all other activities and for true companionship, a man is better served by another man. A woman can make no contribution to a man's intellectual life. For these intellectual giants, women were in truth developmentally retarded men. They do not fulfil nature's primary intention viz. perfection. They are the weaker sex, with less physical and intellectual strength.[Albert the Great, II sent. 20, 1 and IV sent. 26, 6. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q 52, a.1 ad 2; q 92 a.1]St Thomas believed that men have "more perfect reason" than women [Summa Contra Gentiles III, 123]and that because of a defect in their reasoning ability, like children and mentally ill persons, they are not permitted to act as witnesses in court proceedings [Summa Theologiae II/ II q. 70. a.3]. But let us return toSt Augustine and St John Chrysostom.
St Augustine"I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its heights as the fondling of women, and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state." [St Augustine of HippoSoliloquiorum Libri Duo, bk 1, ch. 10. PL vol. 32 col.878. Cfr. Wolfgang Hormann,Augustinus, Opera, sect 1, pars IV, Soliloquiorum libri duo, de immortalitate animae.., Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Series, Vindobonai, Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky,1986. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, pars IIa,IIae, q.151 De Castitate, art. 3, ad 2, Marietti, Rome, 1952, p. 653.]
"The whole of her bodily beauty is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum, and the fluid of digested food. If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and cheeks, you will agree that the well-proportioned body is merely a whitened sepulchre" [St John ChrysostomAd Theodoram lapsum, para. 14, PG vol. 47 cols 297-299. Cfr. An Exhortation to Theodore after his Fall, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. IX, St Chrysostom, ed. Philip Schaff DD., LL.D., Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Michigan, pp. 103-104. (Jacques-Paul Migne published in Paris, between 1856 and 1866, 161 volumes of the works of the early Christian writers who wrote in Greek. The series is known by its abbreviated title Patrologia Graeco-Latina (PG). The first 81 volumes contain only a Latin translation of the original Greek text while the remaining volumes presented the original Greek text together with a Latin translation in parallel columns. Migne also published, between 1844 and 1855, a series of 217 volumes containing the works of early Christian writers who wrote in Latin – Patrologia Latina (PL).]
St John Chrysostom"There are in the world a great many situations that weaken the conscientiousness of the soul. First and foremost of these are dealings with women. In his concern for the male sex, the superior may not forget the females, who need greater care precisely because of their ready inclination to sin. In this situation the evil enemy can find many ways to creep in secretly. For the eye of woman touches and disturbs our soul – and not only the eye of the unbridled woman, but that of the decent one as well." [St John ChrysostomDe Sacerdotio, Bk 6 Chapter 8. PG vol. 48 col. 684. Cfr. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. IX, pp. 78-79]
In reviewing the Church's attitude to the body, flesh, sex, marriage and creation, we should not bypass the Celtic traditions of the Penitentials which reflect the beliefs, the superstitions and practices of the Church in Ireland, in Britain and throughout Europe from about the sixth century to the tenth or eleventh century. The Penitential of Finnian of Clonard dates from the first half of the sixth century. Canon 46advised and exhorted that married couples should regularly abstain from engaging in any sexual activity, and for lengthy periods.
"...since marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin, and (marriage) is permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for the sake of children ... not for the lustful concupiscence of the flesh. Married people, then, must mutually abstain during three forty-day periods in each single year, by consent for a time, that they may be able to have time for prayer for the salvation of their souls; and on Sunday night or Saturday night they must mutually abstain, and after the wife has conceived he shall not have intercourse with her until she has borne her child..." [John T. McNeill and Helena M. Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance, a translation of the principal Libri Poenitentiales and selections from related documents, Columbia University Press, New York, 1938, p. 96.]
The Penitential of Abbot Cummean was in circulation in the Frankish Empire in the early ninth century and was probably known in Ireland in the seventh century. It provided the penances to be imposed for a whole variety of sins (the many forms of gluttony, avarice, anger, violence, pride, misuse of the sacred species etc), especially sins of a sexual nature – fornication by a bishop, a priest, a deacon, bestiality by clerics, sodomy, oral sex, kissing, defiling virgins, polluting glances, suggestive advances etc. Within this context, the Penitential provided:
"30. He who is in a state of matrimony ought to be continent during the three forty-day periods and on Saturday and on Sunday, night and day, and in the two appointed week days, and after conception, and during the entire menstrual period.
31. After a birth he shall abstain, if it is a boy, for thirty-three (days); if a daughter, for sixty-six (days)." [op.cit., p. 105]
At he end of the twelfth century, Innocent III succeeded his uncle, Celestine III, as Bishop of Rome. He was elected by the Cardinals to be Pope when he was thirty-six years old and only a cardinal deacon. As a deacon he showed his colours in an essay on "The Misery of our Human Condition":
Pope Innocent III"Oh the supreme ugliness of sexual pleasure! It not only makes the mind effeminate but the body sick; not only stains the soul but defiles the person as well... Sexual pleasure is preceded by lust and wantonness; it is accompanied by a foulsome stench and uncleanliness; it is followed by sadness and remorse. Man has been formed of dust, clay, ashes and, a thing far more vile, of the filthy sperm. Man has been conceived in the desire of the flesh, in the heat of sensual lust, in the foul stench of wantonness.... Sexual intercourse is always infected – even in matrimony – with the desire of the flesh, with the heat of lust and with the foul stench of wantonness. Because of this, the union of the sexes itself is contaminated; whence, too, does the soul inherit the infection of sin....for in sexual intercourse one loses dominion over one's reason and thus sows ignorance; the heat of lust is enkindled and so anger is propagate; pleasure is satiated and concupiscence is contracted.
"When we purchase a horse, an ass, a cow, a dress, a bed, a chalice or only a water-pot it is only after having first tried them out. But man's financĂ© is scarcely shown him lest he reject her before marriage. After marriage, however, he must keep her in any case – be she ugly, stinking, sick, stupid, proud, nagging or exhibiting any other fault.... Consider the food that nourishes the child in his mother's womb. It is evident that the embryo is fed by the menstrual blood; ... This substance is said to be so detestable and impure that it makes trees barren and vineyards unproductive. It can kill grass and if a dog eats out of it, rabies result. Should the menstrual blood infect the male seed it may cause leprosy and elephantiasis in the child." [Pope Innocent III (formerly known as Cardinal Deacon Lotario dei Conti di Segni), De Contemptu Mundi sive De Miseria Humanae Conditionis Libri Tres, bk 1 , chs 1-18 . PL vol. 217 cols 702-711. Cfr. On the Misery of the Human Condition – De Misera Humanae Conditionis, ed. Donald R Howard, tr. Margaret Mary Dietz, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1969.] 
Albert the Great, one of the great theologians of the thirteenth century, had a similar problem.
At Albert the Great"Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behaviour. For the woman contains more liquid than the man, and it is a property of liquid to take things up easily and to hold onto them poorly. Liquids are easily moved, hence women are inconstant and curious. When a woman has relations with a man, she would like, as much as possible, to be lying with another man at the same time. Woman knows nothing of fidelity. Believe me, if you give her your trust, you will be disappointed. Trust an experienced teacher. For this reason prudent men share their plans and actions least of all with their wives. Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison with his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she herself cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil.... In evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good." [Albertus Magnus,Opera Omnia, tome 12, Quaestiones super De Animalibus, XV, q.11, edition Coloniensis, published by Monasterii Westfalorum in aedibus Aschendorff, 1951.]
The heretical ideas of the second century Gnostics with their dualistic and pessimistic interpretation of the universe, their contempt for the body and all things material – ideas taken up and preached later by the Manicheans, and later again by the Albigensians or Cathars; the extreme, ascetical practices of monks and hermits from the third century and the strange mentality behind them; the Platonic and neo-Platonic dichotomy between body and soul; the ascetic dictates of Stoicism which floated in the ether breathed by the early Church; St Augustine's attitude to sexual concourse and his theory of Original Sinbeing spread like a disease by sexual intercourse; the belief of the early Church that the world was about to end in some general cosmic catastrophe; an emerging fear of women as temptresses, witches and successors of Eve who led Adam astray and upset the spiritual harmony of the world; the development of ascetical, repressive practices to emulate the sufferings of the early martyrs and to chain down the unruly moods and humours; the constant attempts of local councils of bishops to keep their clergy away from women, out of the presbyteries and sacristies, to preserve the accumulating wealth of the Church and enforce the dictates of celibacy – all these ideas and influences have contributed to destroying the creational message of Biblical literature and the fundamental message of the New Testament that the Word of God emptied himself and took on the real form and true character of a flesh man, and resulted in twisting into a tangle any possibility of a healthy theology of sexuality.
Just for fun, let us stop for a moment to recall just a few bons mots of Albert the Great on the subject of sexual activity and its consequences. He thought it was indecent to have sex on Sundays, feast days, on days of fasting and processions [IV sent. d.32 a.10]. Frequent intercourse led to premature ageing and death [de animalibus 1.9 and 15]. Too much sex thins out the brain and the indulgent person's eyes sink into their sockets and his eye-sight deteriorates [Quaestiones super de animalibus, XV, q. 14]. Excessive activity causes baldness because sex dries out the body of the participant and cools him out [ibid. XIX, q.7-9]. Being an observant scholar, Albert noticed that those who have sex often are followed around by dogs, because they are attracted by the strong smell of rotten semen [ibid. V, q. 11-14]. Let's leaveAlbert there, on that elevated note.
Our Church has much ground to cover, putrid stables to clean out before she can speak persuasively to the world and to us about the world, about our lives, our bodies and what they are built to do.
+++end of long quote+++

Gerarghty observes correctly that
Not enough attention has been paid to the beauty and goodness of God's creation, to human intimacy, to a transforming flesh-love between a man and a woman, the exquisite beauty of the human body, to our God-given spontaneous drives and impulses and to the realities of human existence.
It has always struck me that a primary factor why there is such a negative attitude towards sex and women in substantial parts of the Roman Catholic tradition is that theological discourse and thinking on moral issues have traditionally been done (that is, happily, changing little by little) by celibate male clerics who are part of a culture of clericalism that is narcissistic, dysfunctional, patriarchal and deeply condescending towards women and sex in major ways.

As if by coincidence, I also came upon an article in the blogspot 'Enlightened Catholicism' which deals with how Pope Francis, despite his bold and forward-looking comments on gays and women & Catholicism ("there is need for a deeper theology of women") is himself still deeply entrenched in the traditional patriarchal mindset described above. Check the article entitled "Pope Franics Is Not All That Evolved On Issues Of Sex And Gender" here.