Rational Examiner » Exploring the human condition
Feb22

Sermon analysis Part 3: Pope Benedict XVI

by Jay North on February 22, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Posted In: Religion
pope mobile

Pope worried about being hit by a baseball at Yankee Stadium, 2008.

This is the third article in a three part series in which I examine the absurdities in a sermon by Pope Benedict XVI at Yankee Stadium in New York on April 20, 2008. The analysis was inspired by a Catholic who told me that the Pope is the most intelligent person in the world.

In this part of the homily, Pope Benedict refers to a reading (given in Spanish) from the first book of Peter (2: 4-9):

4 Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and 5 like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture:

“See, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

7 To you then who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the very head of the corner,”

8 and

“A stone that makes them stumble,
and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

The Pope says:

This magnificent vision of a world being transformed by the liberating truth of the Gospel is reflected in the description of the Church found in today’s second reading. The Apostle tells us that Christ, risen from the dead, is the keystone of a great temple which is even now rising in the Spirit. And we, the members of his body, through Baptism have become “living stones” in that temple, sharing in the life of God by grace, blessed with the freedom of the sons of God, and empowered to offer spiritual sacrifices pleasing to him (cf. 1 Pet 2:5). And what is this offering which we are called to make, if not to direct our every thought, word and action to the truth of the Gospel and to harness all our energies in the service of God’s Kingdom? Only in this way can we build with God, on the one foundation which is Christ (cf. 1 Cor 3:11). Only in this way can we build something that will truly endure. Only in this way can our lives find ultimate meaning and bear lasting fruit.

So the Pope says we are to commit ourselves to the truth of the Gospel. But which part exactly? The part that says that Christ rose from the dead? Why should we believe statements like this? Where is the evidence that Christ rose from the dead? Why should we believe that any of the miracles that are written about in the Gospels actually occurred, and are not the result of embellishment or myth-making on the part of the tellers?

Faith is a convenient way of urging people to believe in something without evidence. Why should we believe what is written in the New Testament? To claim that only through an unquestioned acceptance of a text (explained to the people, it should be said, by the Pope’s appointed authorities) will people find “ultimate meaning” is the same thing that Imams tell their followers with regard to the Koran, and Swamis tell their disciples with regard to the Bhagavad Gita.

Sure, many followers feel a sense of spirituality (at least from time to time) that leads them to connect with the words written in these texts. But a sense of religious feeling does not make the words true. No more than it does for someone who had faith that David Koresh was the messiah, or a Muslim extremist has faith that blowing up a bus full of children will ensure their place in heaven. Because many Christians find that commitment to the Church does provide meaning in their lives, as well as a sense of joy, peace and even freedom, it is difficult for them to grasp this point.

That is why it is difficult to convey to them the benefits of actually moving away from the grasp of the Church and thinking more objectively about issues like freedom and morality. The Church has directed their sense of spirituality towards Church dogma, such that the two cannot be distinguished in the minds of believers.

The Church has also trapped its followers within the illusion of sin. To deviate from the Church’s teachings is a sin that is emotionally felt. With sin, one does not experience joy, peace or freedom. With sin one feels like there is a piece missing – the cornerstone that their lives are built around, the so-called Christ.

The Pope goes on to praise the achievements of Catholics in America. He then says the following, quoting the First letter of Peter once more:

“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people he claims for his own, to proclaim his glorious works” (1 Pet 2:9). These words of the Apostle Peter do not simply remind us of the dignity which is ours by God’s grace; they also challenge us to an ever greater fidelity to the glorious inheritance which we have received in Christ (cf. Eph 1:18). They challenge us to examine our consciences, to purify our hearts, to renew our baptismal commitment to reject Satan and all his empty promises. They challenge us to be a people of joy, heralds of the unfailing hope (cf. Rom 5:5) born of faith in God’s word, and trust in his promises.

It’s always interesting to hear Satan referred to in a sermon, as if the personification of evil is actually a real figure who lurks around in the background tempting people into sin. This aside, the constant reminders to have “faith” and “trust” in the gospel is the equivalent of saying refrain from rational thought. The effect of this constant exhortation to believe and accept without question is a form of brainwashing. The congregation setting where members are not encouraged to raise objections during sermons (unlike, say, university lectures) and where any expressions of doubt are frowned upon is the perfect setting for this indoctrination process.

Each day, throughout this land, you and so many of your neighbors pray to the Father in the Lord’s own words: “Thy Kingdom come”. This prayer needs to shape the mind and heart of every Christian in this nation. It needs to bear fruit in the way you lead your lives and in the way you build up your families and your communities. It needs to create new “settings of hope” (cf. Spe Salvi, 32ff.) where God’s Kingdom becomes present in all its saving power. 

Praying fervently for the coming of the Kingdom also means being constantly alert for the signs of its presence, and working for its growth in every sector of society. It means facing the challenges of present and future with confidence in Christ’s victory and a commitment to extending his reign. It means not losing heart in the face of resistance, adversity and scandal. It means overcoming every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom and happiness. It also means rejecting a false dichotomy between faith and political life, since, as the Second Vatican Council put it, “there is no human activity – even in secular affairs – which can be withdrawn from God’s dominion” (Lumen Gentium, 36). It means working to enrich American society and culture with the beauty and truth of the Gospel, and never losing sight of that great hope which gives meaning and value to all the other hopes which inspire our lives.

So now the Pope is exhorting followers not only to implement the Church’s teachings in their own lives, but also in their families and communities in order to create the environment for the coming of “God’s Kingdom”. The need to not to be discouraged in the face of resistance, adversity and scandal is basically saying to followers not to worry about other doubters, or even the scandals that may grip the Church itself. It is encouraging a form of indifference to views and events that might expose the hypocrisy of the Church.

Further, the Pope is being critical of the separation between religion and politics, which is the hallmark of modern democracies. Undoubtedly, the Pope would like to see a return to the period when the Church had a prominent role in secular affairs. Again, this is very dangerous thinking, which impinges on the freedom of religious belief that the separation of religion and politics enables.

And this, dear friends, is the particular challenge which the Successor of Saint Peter sets before you today. As “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”, follow faithfully in the footsteps of those who have gone before you! Hasten the coming of God’s Kingdom in this land! Past generations have left you an impressive legacy. In our day too, the Catholic community in this nation has been outstanding in its prophetic witness in the defense of life, in the education of the young, in care for the poor, the sick and the stranger in your midst. On these solid foundations, the future of the Church in America must even now begin to rise!

It is true that the Church has done a great deal for educating the young, caring for the poor, looking after the infirmed and welcoming strangers. Those Christian values have arguably been the foundation for modern ethics and the development of Western civilization. However, those values have evolved into a secular form and have taken on their own evolutionary path, in some ways conflicting with the Church’s double-standards in applying such values. The civil rights extended to homosexuals is a good example, where the Church has failed to apply Jesus’ own standards of acceptance, love and tolerance, instead resisting society’s own push for universal rights. Gender equality is another example.

I won’t bother going on with the rest of the homily, as I have made my point. The Pope has not only a poor intellectual grasp of theological and social issues, but his ideas are irresponsible in that they encourage irrational and unquestioning thought. I have not even ventured into the controversial issues of contraception, AIDs, divorce rights and paedophilia where the Pope has been a “stumbling” block on the path to progress.

So what does the Church have to offer to fulfilling the type of ‘New Jerusalem’ imagined by Jesus? Not much. I will leave you with the following verse from the 1st book of Corinthians (13:11):

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

└ Tags: , , , ,
 Comment 
Feb18

Sermon analysis Part 2: Pope Benedict XVI

by Jay North on February 18, 2013 at 7:20 pm
Posted In: Religion
Pope in robes

“Gandalf ain’t got nothin’ on me”

This is the second article in a three part series in which I expose the absurdities in a sermon by Pope Benedict XVI at Yankee Stadium in New York on April 20, 2008. The analysis was inspired by a Catholic who told me that the Pope is the most intelligent person in the world.

In this part of the sermon, the Pope highlights the contribution of the Church to development of American society with particular emphasis on its cultural diversity (I have not reproduced this part of the homily here). He then makes the point that unity is provided by faith. He refers to the following reading from Acts of the Apostle (6: 1-7):

Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. 2 And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Therefore, friends, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task, 4 while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.” 5 What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.6 They had these men stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

7 The word of God continued to spread; the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

The Pope says:

The first reading also makes clear, as we see from the imposition of hands on the first deacons, that the Church’s unity is “apostolic”. It is a visible unity, grounded in the Apostles whom Christ chose and appointed as witnesses to his resurrection, and it is born of what the Scriptures call “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; cf. Acts 6:7). “Authority” and “obedience”. To be frank, these are not easy words to speak nowadays. Words like these represent a “stumbling stone” for many of our contemporaries, especially in a society which rightly places a high value on personal freedom. Yet, in the light of our faith in Jesus Christ – “the way and the truth and the life” – we come to see the fullest meaning, value, and indeed beauty, of those words. The Gospel teaches us that true freedom, the freedom of the children of God, is found only in the self-surrender which is part of the mystery of love. Only by losing ourselves, the Lord tells us, do we truly find ourselves (cf. Lk 17:33). True freedom blossoms when we turn away from the burden of sin, which clouds our perceptions and weakens our resolve, and find the source of our ultimate happiness in him who is infinite love, infinite freedom, infinite life. “In his will is our peace”.

The Pope has focussed on the last part of the verse here that mentions “a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith”.

This is actually quite a problematic part of the verse, as it implies that some of the priests had not become obedient to the faith. What happened to the priests who were not obedient? Were they excommunicated? Presumable not, but the Book of Acts does not elaborate. Nor does the Pope, who is not interested to mention such thorny matters.

Rather, he wants to make the point that obedience to the faith, which involves turning away from sin, is the ultimate form of freedom (at this point the Pope has moved completely away from the verse, which he seems to have had only a very superficial interest in). This is despite those in contemporary American society who equate freedom with refusal to submit to a faith.

The Pope’s view on freedom here is problematic. What sort of freedom is he meaning? If freedom means doing and thinking as one likes, as it is normally defined, then turning away from a rigid conformity to Church teachings does indeed constitute a form of freedom. In fact, religious believers should try it some time. Giving up your faith is often associated with an intense feeling of freedom (or confusion for some).

The sort of freedom that the Pope has in mind, however, is freedom from the burden of sin. This is a false freedom of course, because it is the Church that defines the sins that burden their followers. Non-Catholics do not get burdened by sins that they do not believe to be sinful. For the non-Catholic, where is the freedom in submitting themselves to the authority of the Church? There is none. Of course, the Pope is speaking to the faithful flock, who do not know any better.

The Pope continues:

Real freedom, then, is God’s gracious gift, the fruit of conversion to his truth, the truth which makes us free (cf. Jn 8:32). And this freedom in truth brings in its wake a new and liberating way of seeing reality. When we put on “the mind of Christ” (cf. Phil 2:5), new horizons open before us! In the light of faith, within the communion of the Church, we also find the inspiration and strength to become a leaven of the Gospel in the world. We become the light of the world, the salt of the earth (cf. Mt 5:13-14), entrusted with the “apostolate” of making our own lives, and the world in which we live, conform ever more fully to God’s saving plan.

We might agree with the age-old adage that ‘the truth will set you free’. The problem is who defines what is true? The Pope, as an anti-relativist, believes the truth is absolute. Further, he believes that the Church has the authority to define the truth for us. If we accept this, then we are dependent on the Church to define the truth for us to follow. Where is the freedom in that? Further, if the truth being defined by the Church is actually erroneous, then followers of the Church are anything but free (in the sense of being free from error).

The Pope digs himself even deeper into a hole. He notes that not only must we submit ourselves to “God’s saving plan”, but the whole world in which we live as well. So what about the rest of the world’s freedom to believe in what they want, which quite probably disagrees with “God’s saving plan” as the Pope would define it? The issue here is freedom in the libertarian sense, like the US Constitution that ensures the rights of citizens to believe in whatever creed they like. The Pope would like the whole world to be “obedient” to the Church’s teachings. The manner in which the Church has championed against reforms such as gender equality, gay marriage and sexual health in Africa (specifically condom use to prevent HIV infection) robs freedom from many (I could also include the Church’s stance again abortion here, but that particular matter is complex and requires inspection in another article).

The Catholic Church is an institution that discourages questioning of its doctrines. Its ideas are presented more as rules and laws for its followers to obey rather than freely adopt. Without a rational process for evaluating ideas (which Church followers are not encouraged to develop), freedom is a rather empty concept, because it does not encompass the freedom to think.

└ Tags: , , , ,
2 Comments
Feb16

Sermon analysis Part 1: Pope Benedict XVI

by Jay North on February 16, 2013 at 10:31 am
Posted In: Religion
Pope at Yankee Stadium

Pope takes the outfield at Yankee Stadium, 2008

Recently a Catholic said to me that the Pope is the most intelligent person in the world, to which I laughed.

Pope Benedict is often regarded as the pre-eminent theologian in the Church, and was considered as such even prior to becoming Pope. If any Catholic knows what he/she is talking about, it should be him.

But if Pope Benedict is the best intellect that the Catholic Church has to offer, then the Catholic Church has a serious problem. So in this series of articles I am going to demonstrate the lack of intelligence exhibited by the Pope through offering a commentary on one of his sermons.

I could have chosen instead to analyse his historical-theological writings (such as his recent trilogy on the life of Jesus), but a discussion of his academic works would be rather scholarly in tone because it would need to cover the finer points of Church and textual history. It is also true that Pope Benedict is more circumspect in his statements in his published works (intended for fellow scholars) than he is when addressing the everyday laity.

Put it this way, when he writes as a scholar, he writes as Joseph Ratzinger – theological academic. When he speaks to his flock, he speaks as Pope Benedict XVI – defender of the faith. As Pope he adopts quite a different mode (and standard) of intellectual engagement that is more reckless in substance and dumbs down the issues and ideas being raised. It is the Pope that I am dealing with here.

I have picked the first sermon I found when I Googled the terms ‘full transcript’ ‘pope’, and ‘homily’, so I have not in any way been selective in picking out this sermon. In other words, it is probably not one of his worse sermons. In fact, he probably put more effort into preparing this particular one, given that it was spoken to 60,000 attendees packed into the Yankee Stadium in New York on April 20, 2008 during his US tour. The full transcript of the sermon can be found here.

The Pope’s sermon followed this reading from the Gospel according to John (14:1-12):

1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And you know the way to the place where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

The Pope said the following:

“Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, 

In the Gospel we have just heard, Jesus tells his Apostles to put their faith in him, for he is “the way, and the truth and the life” (Jn 14:6). Christ is the way that leads to the Father, the truth which gives meaning to human existence, and the source of that life which is eternal joy with all the saints in his heavenly Kingdom. Let us take the Lord at his word! Let us renew our faith in him and put all our hope in his promises!”

In the verse being referred to by the Pope, Jesus has responded to a question from Thomas about how the disciples might know the way once Jesus is gone, to which Jesus has answered that “no one comes to the Father except by me,” and then proceeds to explain that the Father dwells within him and through his acts, so that to know the Son is to know the Father. This is an exchange that is specific to John’s gospel and not found in the others, which is not unusual for John, who most biblical scholars surmise authored his gospel later than the other gospel writers and had a tendency to restructure, embellish and add to what was found in the other gospel traditions.

Pope Benedict does not care to admit the dubious historicity of the passage. In fact he tells us to “take the Lord at his word!”, as if Jesus really said it. This is not mere naivety, because the Pope as a religious scholar should know better. He is deceiving his listeners, who unfortunately do not know any better.

The Pope has also failed to explain what the verse means, treating it as if its meaning is self-evident. Is it mere faith in Jesus that leads to heaven, or is it following his example? Catholic theologians have debated, and continue to debate, this a great deal themselves ( for example, see here). It raises an acute theological problem as to whether non-believers (such as people who are not taught Christianity) would go to heaven or not. Until the Vatican II reforms, it was Church doctrine that they would not, but the Vatican II council (in CCC847) reversed this view and stated that it is through Christ-like acts that one goes to heaven, even if one has never been exposed to Church teachings. The Pope has simply scooted around the complexity of the verse, and left his listeners none the wiser as to the complexities of the issues surrounding Scripture on this point.

Pope Benedict is maintaining a great deception to his audience, which is to pretend that the New Testament is clear in its meaning and that the Church has an absolute understanding of it. Pope Benedict’s personal crusade against relativism was a trademark of his ministry. However, it is absurd to postulate that clear interpretations are possible from Scripture, as the variety of denominations that have emerged attests, as well as reversals made by the Vatican II council. In Part 2 of this article series I will examine the next part of Pope Benedict’s homily addressing religion and freedom, where the Pope further dumbs down the issues and misleads his audience.

└ Tags: , ,
 Comment 
Feb12

Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation: So what?

by Jay North on February 12, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Posted In: Religion

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI came as a surprise to many. The surprise was as much due to the rarity with which popes resign from office, and not just the sudden nature of the announcement.

Only a few popes have ever resigned. Several popes have been forced to resign, including Pope Gregory XII (c. 1326 – 18 October 1417), who resigned under political pressure to resolve the schism in the Church that had led to a succession of popes reigning simultaneously. But only one other pope has resigned voluntarily, and Benedict’s resignation has much in common with this case.

Pope Celestine V (1215 – 19 May 1296), who introduced the right for popes to resign voluntarily, became pope at the age of 79 years (Benedict XVI became pope at the age of 78 years). Celestine had served as Pope for only five months when poor administration and a longing to return to monastic life saw him step down. The reasons he cited were “The desire for humility, for a purer life, for a stainless conscience, the deficiencies of his own physical strength, his ignorance, the perverseness of the people, his longing for the tranquillity of his former life.”

The reasons given by Benedict XVI for retiring are not all that dissimilar to those provided by Celestine V. Benedict XVI cited his “advanced age” and lack of both physical and mental strength in his retirement announcement. Benedict XVI also spoke of his desire to pursue a “life dedicated to prayer”. Further, although Benedict XVI made no mention of it during his statement, it is well known that he struggled with administrative control over the Vatican, particularly in his attempts to introduce greater transparency in the Vatican’s financial transactions.

Although Benedict XVI has come under some criticism for resigning by devout Catholics (who see the Papal office as divinely sanctioned), it is a sensible action by someone who has reached an age well past consideration for the retirement village. As Benedict XVI explains in his statement, the job of the Pope is a taxing one, and best suited for someone with mental and physical vigour.

But was the Pope’s resignation only about getting too old? It is fair to say that the Pope was not having a particularly successful record as Pope. Not only was he struggling to introduce transparency into Vatican administrative practices, it could be argued that his influence in providing moral leadership on major world issues was weak. Is it just a coincidence that he stepped down in the wake of the UK and France passing gay marriage laws? The Pope had only a few weeks previously denounced gay marriage as the worst issue facing mankind. Sure, his retirement was probably some time in the planning (he had tried to retire as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope John Paul II, but his resignation was refused). But the timing of his retirement announcement is nonetheless interesting.

Perhaps there were other factors associated with the timing that we are not aware of. But certainly, the Pope’s health has been deteriorating for some time,  and at the ripe old age of 85 years, it was prudent for the Pope to step aside to allow someone younger to take the reigns. Can we expect the next pope to be more dynamic in reforming the Church along more liberal lines? Here is a sobering thought for those hoping to see a more progressive Pope installed by the conclave. Over half of the cardinals voting for the next Pope were appointed by Benedict, who has been loading up the senior positions with conservative-minded clergy like himself. The rest were appointed by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who was also a conservative.

The root of the problem with the Roman Catholic Church is the fundamentally traditional sensibility that permeates the Vatican cardinals and which will only be overcome – if ever – through successive generational change. Go listen to some of the younger, more dynamic Catholic priests at your local parish and you might find some with more dynamic and liberal ideas. But the higher one goes up the hierarchy, the more conservative the mindset becomes (and, not coincidentally, the older in age they are).

So am I hopeful that the next Pope will lead the faithful flock into a higher state of understanding and commitment to equality? Hardly. The disappointment for me is that while Benedict XVI has resigned, the throng of ignorant, intolerant, aged cardinals who voted him will still remain. The Church will continue to remain at least two centuries behind the modern world, holding up the progress of one billion Catholics who lack instruction in basic rationality and liberal thought.

 Comment 
Feb09

Gay marriage part 3: family matters

by Jay North on February 9, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Posted In: Religion, Social

same sex parentsThose opposed to gay marriage have argued that gay marriage will undermine the institution of the family. This point of view is often grounded in claims regarding the dysfunctional impacts of same-sex parenting, or on claims that such family structures are not ‘traditional’ in either a historical sense or theological sense. None of these claims carry weight.

One argument is that children of gay parents will face confusion and ridicule. But this is true only to the extent that society looks down upon same-sex parents and their children, and so this is not a problem with gay marriage as much as with a homophobic society. Its logic therefore is only in practical terms, but is not consistent with progressive reform aimed at a more rational, fair society.

Another argument is that gay parenting is not as effective as straight parenting. Given the amount of poor parenting that abounds, I find this difficult to believe. The question of whether being raised by same sex parents leads to worse outcomes for children is an empirical matter, and therefore requires empirical support. A recent paper by Loren Marks (2012) from Louisiana State University notes that no study has yet involved a sufficient sample size to report scientifically valid findings on this matter. Until substantive research is carried out, the assertion that same sex parenting impacts negatively on children is not a valid assertion.

What I suspect underlies the view that gay marriage is inappropriate is an assumption that only families with a mother and father are a ‘natural’ means of rearing children. What is often not realised is that the nuclear family structure is a recent invention. Many traditional societies raised children using an extended family model. Among Australian Aborigines, for example, children were more or less raised collectively by the tribe, with a child having several people they would refer to as mother, father, uncle, aunty, and so on.

Polygamous marriages have also been the norm in past societies. This was true among the Hebrews, for example, with polygamous families rife in the Old Testament. It is somewhat odd that Christian ministers should be the most ardent advocates of the nuclear family model of ‘mum and dad’ when, in many other instances, they draw on the Old Testament as an authoritative source for proper conduct.

The 5th century theologian St Augustine was aware of the contradiction, and attempted to explain away polygamy amongst the patriarchs as a deviation from God’s original plan, as evidenced by Adam and Eve. He wrote:

That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself (Of Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk.1, Ch.9).

This is quite a stretch by St Augustine, because it fails to acknowledge that unless God created a second woman from the ribs of Adam, there was no possibility for Adam to take a second wife. But by the 7th generation, Lamech we are told had “married two women, one named Adah, the other Zillah” (Gen 4:19).

Nowhere in the Old Testament does God condemn the taking of multiple wives. As usual, religious authorities are engaging in creative interpretation to try to reconcile textual traditions with modern Christian theology.

Polygamy is not addressed in the New Testament either, although 1 Timothy 3:2 recommends that bishops should only have one wife because they must be “above reproach”, implying that polygamy was associated with sexual delights (see 1 Corinthians 7:1-9). Despite the absence of scriptural support, the Catholic Church took it upon itself to declare polygamy as “not in accord with the moral law” and forbid its practice (paragraph 2387, Catechism of the Catholic Church).  Protestant churches subscribe to the same view, although many Mormons (unofficially) defend the practice based on the authority of scripture.

Hence, the view that families traditionally involve a single male and female parent is not borne out by historical and anthropological evidence, nor is it prescribed in Christian-Judaic scriptures. This is not to suggest that same sex parent families have been the norm at any time in the same way that polygamy has. On the hand, it was not unusual in the past, nor is it unusual now, for children to be raised in an all female household, or even an all male household, when the mother or father dies or leaves.

In conclusion, those appealing to the preference of mother-father parenting based on evidence, nature or tradition are on shaky ground. In the 21st century, where all manner of family structures prevail due to de-facto relationships, single parenting, blended families, adopted families, and so on, same-sex families should not be considered abnormal in any sense.

It should be kept in mind, too, that many same-sex families are formed in the aftermath of broken-down heterosexual relationships where the biological parent would otherwise be raising the child on their own. In such cases, critics are essentially making the case that the child would be better off with one parent instead of two same-sex parents.

None of this of course is directly related to gay marriage, because family structures in the modern age are not dependent on the marital status of the parents. In other words, same-sex parenting has, and will continue to, take place irrespective of whether gay marriages are legally recognised. The issue is indirectly related by virtue of the argument that the legal recognition of what types of marriage are appropriate or inappropriate are felt by many people to impact the norms concerning what sorts of parenting arrangements and family structures are appropriate or inappropriate.

The point I would make is that these structures will form anyway, so why continue to maintain an environment where these sorts of family arrangements are stigmatised and the children growing up in these families are made to feel abnormal? Surely this couldn’t be in the interests of anyone, and would only serve to extend prejudice from homosexuals to include their children as well.

└ Tags: , , ,
 Comment