The time is rapidly approaching when opposition to LGBT rights will be judged the same way slavery and Jim Crowe are seen in most parts of the US today. But many faiths, especially Islam and Catholicism, have staked out arguably immovable, hard-line positions backed by centuries of tradition endorsed by authoritarian hierarchies at every level. It’s not just a modern trend, opposition to same-sex relations stretches back millennia, to the very origin of the underlying deities. How can they roll all that back, assuming they wanted to?
Think of the Vatican: Could Catholics — or for that matter conservative evangelicals or Muslims — simply conjure up a new theology embracing gay rights and downplay the past? Or are they trapped by their own theological and cultural inertia? It seems to me they’re damn if they do and damned if they don’t. They either risk civil war in their own ranks now, or they risk going the way of isolated whack-job Klannish cults in the near future.
Not long ago, as history goes, the vast majority of Christendom endorsed the divine right of kings. And that notion isn’t far from some religious rhetoric today. The kingdoms are gone, European democracy is ascendant, the rhetoric remains but is differently understood, and the religions go on. Religions are remarkably persistent, and more malleable than most of their adherents realize.
I suppose the Catholics could do the same thing as the Mormons did regarding blacks: the Pope could suddenly have a new revelation. Of course, in keeping with their Galileo standard, that won’t be for another 400 years.
Western Religions will deal with same-sex marriage the same way that they deal with every other thing that they defended until it became untenable. The mainstream churches denied that the Earth revolved around the Sun, opposed democracy as unnatural (due to the “divinive right of kings”), opposed blacks and whites marrying, supported slavery, denied that women could own property, denied that women could vote, supported anti-semitism, etc., for as long as they could. Remember, religions are made up of people, and those people often use the religion to support whatever’s currently popular.
Of course, there are some religions and religious people that are more progressive. Some churches fought against slavery, for women’s right to vote, etc.
So what it comes down to is that religions are made up of people, and as society’s standards evolve, so to the attitudes of religions. You just have to ignore the claims of “universal, unchanging truths” which might make people feel good, but which are implausible. If anyone now behaved as the Bible advocated thousands of years ago, and (for example) stoned people to death for wearing cotton/polyester blend, or blowing up banks because they’ve been charging interest on loans, or selling captives into slavery, or slaughtering non-believers, they’d be locked up because those aren’t acceptable now.
Change happens much more often than they let on. Although they make such a fuss about it that they encourage radicals to form in their own group. The Inquisition seems like a good example.
The Catholic Church no longer hunts witches, conducts crusades or inquisitions, nor opposes heliocentrism or evolution or democracy. They now trumpet marriage (albeit one-woman/one-man) as the ideal, when for centuries they followed the early church in idealising and pushing for celibacy for as many people as could bear it (or whose parents decided it would be a great idea for them). The modern church is extremely uncomfortable with the idea of limbo (i.e. that unbaptised infants go to Hell–a mild borderland of Hell, but Hell nevertheless), belief in which was fairly non-controversial for more than a thousand years. For about as long, Catholics were supposed to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (except on Saints’ feast days etc.), abstaining from eating meat. Now they do so (if they’re particularly devout) only during Lent. Women were to have their heads covered in church. Now they only ask that people don’t have bare arms or wear shorts or miniskirts (and that may not be universal). They conducted their services in Latin and discouraged lay people from reading the Bible. The official Bible translation is still the Vulgate (i.e. Latin), but they don’t go around punishing people for translating or reading the Bible in English or French. It’s not unlikely at all that at some point in the future, they will accept same sex marriage. It might take a century or two though. Likewise for the ordination of women and marriage of the clergy. It might happen faster if, for example, they work out an arrangement of rapprochement with the Anglican Church–which they might have to do as their numbers and influence continue to shrink.
“We have always
been at war with Eastasiasupported gay rights.”I agree with the consensus of comments here that, of course, major Western religions will claim to have supported this category of human rights (LGBT) all along. As most readers here know very well, an honest examination of actual history reveals numerous examples of religious ex post facto revisions of past events–blatant inventions, actually, of “history” by the Faithful. This is not, or should not be surprising considering that, by definition, the Faithful profess an unyielding, absolute belief in an obviously mythical worldview—a laughably quaint fictional explanation for the ultimate nature of nature.
I would go a step further, however, with my predictions of future religious claims regarding human rights: Major religions will not only claim to have always supported human rights, but these organizations will claim to have led the fight to secure those rights for all! They will point to some (fringe, minority) liberal church that actually did support human rights early on, and, after decades pass, assert without shame that this was the Christian position!
Steven:
“Think of the Vatican: Could Catholics … simply conjure up a new theology embracing gay rights and downplay the past?”
No. A new theology won’t be “conjured up”. The Church will do what she has always done: propose the ideal that human sexuality is an icon of the divine and that there is no place in it for homosexual acts, but that people with same-sex attraction should be treated with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
What that will mean in a culture that is increasingly hostile to such propositions remains to be seen: the term “culture war” is not used carelessly.
Some commentators suggest that in America at least there will be schism between Catholics who believe what the Church believes and Catholics who would prefer to keep the cultural aspects of Catholicism but conjure up their own theology of sexuality. For me at least, schism would be a tragedy.
The comment at #5 makes some common errors, conflating as it does doctrine and discipline (doctrine being unchangeable and discipline being changeable) and some errors of history.
Limbo, fasting, head-coverings, the use of Latin – all these things are incidental to the core tenets of Catholicism and as such are open to change. It’s a mistake to suggest they are on the same level as the Church’s teachings on marriage – but a mistake often made by opponents on the Church.
ibis3 also suggests that the Church pushed celibacy over marriage for “centuries” – again, an unfounded claim. (And a trifle absurd – wouldn’t the Church want its members to have children?)
The writer is also unaware that the Church already has married clergy: many married deacons and some married priests. That discipline can be relaxed, but ibis3 is wrong to suggest that it thus follows that at some point “[the Church] will accept same sex marriage”: the Church sees “same-sex marriage” as an impossibility, so the discussion of “acceptance” of it is moot.
#7 dfarmer:
“As most readers here know very well, an honest examination of actual history reveals numerous examples of religious ex post facto revisions of past events”.
Could you give us a few of these examples?
Religions and their leaders are gainsayers. They will side with whomever is likely to provide them with the most money and power.
When the Roman empire had power, the catholics latched on by converting the emporer.
When Henry VIII’s actions split England from catholicism, the English priests happily latched on to being a separate church, meaning they could keep power locally instead of in Rome.
When slavery of Africans was practiced, religions gave them the green light and absolution.
When the KKK had power, protestants in the south supported them.
When the Nazis had power, the catholics supported them.
When fascist dictators ruled Central and South America, the local catholic bishops and cardianals (and Rome) blessed them.
When the civil rights movement became too strong to quash, then the churches in the southern US supported them.
And now that LGBT people and their supporters have reached a tipping point where equality is inevitable, now you see churches switching sides in droves.
It’s not about right and wrong, unless it’s “might makes right”. Religions side with those in power so they can leech off of it. They never side with those who are ethically and morally right unless it’s the winning side.
emmet #10
Back in 1215, Pope Innocent III decided that selling indulgences* was a neato-spiffy idea and God was all in favor of it. In 1563, the Council of Trent decided that selling indulgences was a big no-no and God would spank anyone who did it.
*Contrary to popular belief, an indulgence was not forgiveness of sin (which was granted by the Sacrament of Confession) but rather a lessening of punishment for sins. Catholics hold that even after sins are forgiven, the soul is punished in Purgatory (sort of a temporary Hell) for a period determined by the types and numbers of sins committed during the soul’s life on Earth. Indulgences were a “get out of Purgatory early” card.** They were sold by licensed clerics called Pardoners. Johann Tetzel***, a Dominican monk, was the most famous Pardoner.
**See, Brother Louis, I was paying attention in 8th Grade Religion class. :-þ
***A couplet was notoriously attributed to Tetzel: Wenn die Münze im Kästlein klingt, die Seele in den Himmel springt. This is usually rendered in English as “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / The soul from purgatory springs.”
Can non-Catholics be saved, or not? Seems to me that’s changed. Or is that “discipline”, not “doctrine”….
Seriously, emmet, nobody cares.
#11: Seems to me that’s a whole list of facile simplifications of history to make a pat point.
Seriously, is it just me that can see that?
Or is Stacy right: seriously, when it comes to right use of reason, nobody cares?