DISPATCHES

Reader Feedback on "Voicebox III: Divine Ecstasy: Sin, Asceticism, and Sexuality in the Catholic Tradition"

Elaine Pagels--I am trying to figure how to send you and email--don't know whether you will get this. I have read much of your work, and seen you numerous times on TV--your work on the early church brought about a chance in my thinking. What I really want now is something else. I read somewhere, that your late husband Heinz had some kind of vision or knowledge concerning eternitiy--life after death, or whatever, and that it is in one of his books--Cosmic Code, or Perfect Symmetry--Can you give me a reference on any of this? Paul Gayet pgayet@hotmail.com
--PG
09/18

Brava! to Paglia for her usual brilliance and candor. Much of the rest is pap; but I especially hate it when "experts" perpetuate cultural cliches. Take, for instance, Francoeur, who in Question 4 delivers the standard dismissal of Thomas Aquinas by quoting the unjustly famous "defective and misbegotten" text from the Summa Theologica. The context is everything. In that article of the Summa, Thomas is *defending* the propriety of God's creation of both sexes, in the face of Aristotle's teaching that sperm naturally makes a male, but sometimes environmental factors (like the south wind) bring about a female conception. If this biological notion is true (which it was not Thomas's place to dispute, not being a biologist), the objection might arise that woman is not part of God's plan for creation, since she is conceived by an accident of nature. (Aristotle seems to have thought this because the sperm, coming from a male, would naturally tend towards the production of males.) Thomas's reply to this objection is that the biology is irrelevant. The latin word standardly translated as "misbegotten" is "occasionatus," which means "accidentally caused." Thomas says that, even if a particular woman is caused by a mere environmental factor (which is what he grants in the passage quoted by Francoeur), "nevertheless, as regards human nature in general, woman is not occasionatus, but is included in nature's intention." This is the *very next line*, conveniently omitted by those who would like to rewrite the history of philosophy. If this is not enough, consider Thomas's explicit statement that women are not by nature defective, found in the Summa Contra Gentiles, 4:88. He is answering those who think that the resurrected bodies of the afterlife will not be gendered (or will be only male). He says they will be male and female, "For since resurrection means the reparation of the defects of nature, nothing of what makes for the perfection of nature will be withdrawn from the bodies of the risen." And then he explicitly says this includes both male and female genitals. While I'm at it, consider what Thomas has to say about the argument that women are not equal in dignity and value to men because according to Genesis Eve was created after Adam. Apart from being silly (Adam was created after the animals, so the order would make Eve the crown of creation), he says: (ST Ia.q.92,a.3): "I answer that, It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman. For the woman should not lord it over man, and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be looked down on as a slave, and so she was not made from his feet." The words for "social union," "socialis coniunctio", might also be translated "alliance." And, how contrary to sex is the following comment from the Summa Contra Gentiles: "The members of the body are the tools of the soul... there are members of the body the use of which is for the intercourse of the sexes: that therefore is their purpose. But that which is the purpose of any natural thing cannot be in itself evil, because the things of nature are ordinances of divine providence. Therefore the intercourse of the sexes cannot be in itself evil." Finally, Consider Francoeur's comment that "too many theologians have linked Adam and Eve's original sin with sex." I agree that even one is one too many. But I notice he doesn't pin the blame on anyone in particular; but certainly Thomas can't be the whipping boy here. In the ST (1a, 98:2) he asks whether coitus would have occurred in the innocence of Eden if there had been no Fall. His answer is an emphatic *yes*: "Nothing is void in God's works. Therefore, even if man had not sinned, there would have been such intercourse, to which the distinction of sex is ordained... For what is natural to man was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin." Then he considers whether the "delight of sense" would have been less in Edenic sex, and he says "sensible delight have been the greater in proportion to the greater purity of nature and the greater sensibility of the body"; despite the greater intensity of pleasure, he says, intercourse would have been *more* in tune with reason than it now is. All this just to set the record straight. But the need to misreport history to bolster one's arguments seems to be irresistible in some circles.
--FY
06/24

Unable to open "Voicebox 3
--S.O.
06/05

I would like to comment on what you mentioned as "Christianity has often focused so narrowly on the spirit that the body has been neglected, even seen as an obstacle" I would encourage you to read the scriptures and gain understanding. The Bible talks about looking after our bodies. Not to abuse it. If what you state as the body even seen as an obstacle, then you are wrong. The Bible uses the word "Flesh" which is referred to the "nature of man". The nature of man is broken and tends to do things that go against our conscience. We know this because we know it is wrong to kill or murder. From what moral standard can man base their morals. Definitely not man. We are corrupt and history pretty much shows its colourless credentials. The Bible talks as much about the body as the spirit.
--UM
05/06

The answer to your question why Christianity rapidly grew and spread quickly, was because it changed lives. It made people see that there is a purpose to life and a destiny. These very people obtained such a vision that they were fulfilled spiritually. The views that are expressed by Jesus are to instruct us. They are not negative in any way. You see them in a negative way. Everything has consequences. You reap in sexual activities that God tells us not to do because for our own good you live with the consequences. Its quite simple. If someone is driving 70 miles per hour down a 50 mile zone, the driver violates the laws and the consequences can be dangerous and even lethal. It is true that Jesus asks to give up everything, but what is everything to you? Not your money and possessions if that is not first in your life (if that is the case then that is probably what you have to give up). God asks to give up that which is against him. The difference with Christianity. A God who created a chamber in the spirit of human beings that can only be filled by Him. Through his only son Jesus. We tend to like filling things with physical joys or other spiritual things that God talks about are a danger. It is so good living life being fulfilled and having a peace knowing that I have destiny and purpose and that this exsistence is not for nothing. That when one dies that that is not it. It can be for you too.
--UM
05/06

Can the ideas of these individuals be combined in a book? I'm thoroughly enjoying each of the questions and responses and it is killing me to try to save every page in my web browser. I had to read "Adam Eve and the Serpent" by Elaine Pagels for a "Bible as Literature" course for school and I thoroughly enjoyed it. As a Christian -- one who was raised a Presbytarian, Non-Denominational "Full Gospel", Assemblies of God-- I have always questioned and wondered about the responses of the church towards sexuality. They are as diverse as the denominations on the whole, but the sexual repression in America alone is bizarre. My sexuality is something I celebrate, even as a single person, and that is at odds with the letter but not the spirit of what I have learned in my faith. Yet I am seen as the "oddball". I believe a lot of Christians (heterosexual as well as gay) are in the closet about their sexuality. I think Christianity in society has more to do with culture than with faith. When it becomes a matter of faith, it has the opportunity to be honest. And when there is honesty, there is an inability to be dishonest about sexuality or any other facet of life. Thanks SO MUCH for having this website and this article. I love it!!
--lmb
03/30

the whole information setting is interrupted P.G. Germany/Hamburg
--P.G.
02/13

Years ago I heard that Aquinas, citing Augustine and Aristotle, specifically allowed abortion within 60 and 90 days after conception for male and female fetuses respectively, but did not venture to say how one might tell these apart. I understood that this was Catholic doctrine until the first Vatican Council of 1870, and that all subsequent editions of the Summa Theologiae have been amended accordingly. Needless to say, I've never seen a pre-1870 copy of the Summa, nor can I guess where to look for one. But if the rumor is true, the implications are delicious. Thanks for a great site!
--JO
05/01

This is a difficult conversation, as theological ones often are for me, because I can't help having the suspicion that the world is exactly the way it's supposed to be. On the one hand, I can't help think that all of this is good. That this discussion pulls me along somehow in my views of religion and sexuality, but they are a very different thing. It's true, perhaps, to describe them as having a similar heritage, impossible to unwind one from the other, but church to me is polyester and potlucks, itchy butt and long out-of-tune hymns. Sex to me is heat and flesh, wetness and earthy, livestock smells, union and discomfort. To speak of them as the same requires a tremendous stretch for me. To get to sex from religion, I have to forget about church altogether and turn to my imagination. But, and here's my main concern, my imagination is a devious machine without the reins of conscience. Neither the imagination (creativity) nor the church can be considered inherently epiphany bound. They need each other.
--JM
04/25

I found the Catholicism Voice Box to be great and (for my own life) very well-timed. Even though I go to a somewhat liberal Methodist Church, where questioning and some disbelief is allowed, what I believe is extremly important to me. I wanted what the Bible said to be true no matter which way I read it. It caused a massive lack of self-confidence to read "O What a miserable man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body that brings me death?" (Romans 7:24) Sex was always preached against. I went to a baptist Christian School. I never thought I would have a nervous breakdown, but I nearly did when they read me "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."(1 Corinthians 7:1) My mind just couldn't handle the idiocy or the contradiction. Read the whole chapter to truely understand how it ALL contradicts the first verse. I had already decided to live in quiet disbelief of everything my parents told me, but thanks to many things in my life, like your whole magazine (Off subject: I can't stop reading the Lisa Carver Diaries), my "horny-as-hell" girlfriend and just general feelings of misery and hatred when I go to my church, I've decided to tell them all off. Thank you very, very much.
--KD
04/18

send feedback on "Voicebox III: Divine Ecstasy: Sin, Asceticism, and Sexuality in the Catholic Tradition"

back to "Voicebox III: Divine Ecstasy: Sin, Asceticism, and Sexuality in the Catholic Tradition"