Beliefs are an integral part of humanity, with the fundamental philosophies of any belief system manifesting and taking form. The strongholding nature of beliefs can latch on leading to subsequent stronger actions as a result of this certain mind set. This mindset maybe even forming an integral part of their inner workings. Faith only really requires belief which can be stronger than any factual ideas learnt introspective of potential evidence put forth.
I remember hearing about a ‘scandal’ within the Vatican where a priest having come out as a gay man and openly expressing his sexuality, was shunned from his community of brothers. His lifelong commitment to the church became completely direagarded without a moments thought, only driven through their strongholding beliefs of relgion. He was stripped from his post hours after his revelation.
The catholic religion was not for the first time catapulted into the limelight causing open dicussions regarding homeosexuality in the catholic church in the 21st century and once again highlighted their rigidity towards such matters.
All seems to change in response to time so why too shouldn’t religion mould itself to fit the required architecture of society without comprimising their integral philosophies?
Instead, the Pope addressed the situation, as quoted below:
“In the name of the church I want to ask for forgiveness for the scandals which occurred recently in Rome or the Vatican. I ask you for forgiveness.
The word of Jesus is strong today. Woe to the world because of scandals. Jesus is a realist. He says it is envitable that there are scandals, but woe to the man who causes scandals.”
My intial thought being why exactly is the Pope asking for forgiveness. For adopting a gay man within the Vatican to represent the catholic church? Is he now not fit to represent the faith with his sexuality known in truth? And does this affect his ability to make legitimate decisions, rendering him inapt? Useless. Unfit for purpose. And bearing in mind this was a post in which he had previously held for over a decade.
An open expression of sexuality shouldn’t elicit or warrant such a response as quoted above along with the subsequent consequences. And as much as I try and put myself in the stance point of the catholic church I still struggle in understanding such rigidity towards matters of discrimination. Although these strongholding, somewhat imprinted, beliefs are not modified in response to isolated incidents of pressure that subdues with time and which will only ever be a temporary fixture, I still expected more of an impact toward forward changes. So what will affect change, if anything at all? What will test the catholic church enough forcing flexibility of once solid constraints? So far nothing has remotely challenged critical change.
The use of the term ‘scandal’ reinforces the idea that there is an inability to alter any aspect of the belief system adopted. This raises the question as to whether the continued resistance taken symbolises their defiance in updating or even acknowledging any potential outdated beliefs. This defiance leads me to further question whether any possibility of an altered mindset could thereby coexist with the catholic relgion without challenging their fundamental belief system. Being heterosexual must surely be fundamental with the manner in which homeosexuality continues to be handled and viewed. No possibilities of any change.
And ‘woe’ to this scandalous man? How can such a negative term used in the religion, when all their teachings comprise of the counter opposite in effect? Does the nature of their reaction address a differing approach than as to how this would have been handled in the early days of the religion? Or is this a sign that tolerance towards people remains futile despite a increasing tolerability on a social scale? Alienating a member of the catholic religion, highly relied apon previous, points toward an intolerance despite the love and respect which should have been felt toward that person. And despite the consciousness of society. No aspect of the current social structure seemed to alleviate actions of the Pope.
This leads to questions regarding the longevity of relgion in society, which remains unchanging in a constant changing environemt. When comparing to religion, society can now be looked at as it’s angelic counterpart. The morality of religion has serious question marks as to if it even reaches the mark of acceptable equality towards people. It is generally accepted that Christians have a waver towards their intolerance of homeosexuality and let’s not forget this isn’t the only religion with strong views towards other such current affairs. This inability to even debate such topics without fear of potential negative effects points out that change is drastically needed. Which aspect of human rights is abode during talks of religion. Is this the only matter that human rights doesn’t come into effect? This raises some scary thoughts which challenge countless social issues which need to be addressed. Especially from a western stance where freedom of speech is openly adopted.
‘Jesus is a realist’ would be seen as factual with the sentence implemented as a statement although it is still merely an assumption. Although most likely true given the symbolic nature of Jesus, an empathetic and selfless man, it is still nontheless an assumption enforced as fact. And lets not forget his talks of ‘scandals’ and their inevitably to Paul or some apostle or another. That conversation in the Bible, remember. Okay maybe that sarcasm was unwarranted but an impulsive one. I didn’t for a second think it would be that easy in employing additional information, not seen within the Bible, in such a matter of fact manner so hats off to Pope and his statement of fact.
I wonder how the ideas of religion would be preached today had there been stong conflicting social issues. Now that would be interesting! I’m guessing advertisement methods used to breach the subconscious barrier of the mind. Preach jesus, preach! But let’s not get into what could be a lengthy topic.
I questioned my mother’s views regarding the Pope’ statement. She seemed to empathise with the Pope given their views of heterosexual marriage and reproduction, which directly challenges homeosexuality. My stance remained the same given the talks of contraceptive methods whilst at a catholic secondary school. Why shouldn’t philosophies of sex before marriage remain rigid despite the challenges faced? And how about abortions? Why are these ideas either now readily accepted, almost conforming towards the inevitably of sex before marriage, or a blind eye is turned, dismissed, with no problem existing altogether? Why isn’t the same method used for that of homeosexuality? Or better yet, why haven’t these ideas been challenged by catholics themselves; the faithful militants of the faith? And why would these challenges even cause an outcry? A shunning of religion. A cause for battle. When really everything should be able to be challenged and debated.
The longstanding and strong-holding nature of religion continues to puzzle and perplex me. How can a such solid fixture like that of religion remain in a changing environment so long as their creator remains a factual concept?
Religion has remained completely unchallenged from as far back as I can remember. Even at school it wasn’t a topic which would be debated. We were taught the facts and memorised the complementary Bible quotations. Relgion to me felt like seeing 2D black and white in a 3D world full of colourful spectrums. It has not quite evolved like all else. I can’t see much challenging the infrastructure of religion in my generation given such hesitancy in open dicussions concerning anything related to the topic, where even a discussion is potentially seen as a direct challenge against religion and a downright atrocity. Will a happy medium ever exist? In my generation? I’m not too sure but I only hope and pray for a change in tolerability of religion given the tolerability of society towards religion.