If the Church needed any reform...it should have gotten rid of the shadowy, oppressive, feudal structure of the clergy.
The clergy has a two major cancers, two problematic groups. The first are the climbers, unctuous and ambitious, corrupt politicians like any other, good at smooth-talking and walking-the-line. They, especially, seem to be noticeably affected and disproportionately homosexual. If anywhere, that is where you'll find the so-called lavender mafia. Except they aren't all liberal (less and less so, in fact). It has nothing to do with progressive views, nor even necessarily with sexual orientation as conceived of today, but rather with the sort of homoerotic/"homosocial" loyalties/rivalries that develop in the upper ranks of authoritarian all male groups, ala "heroic" cultures like in the Iliad or Beowulf (or less heroic cultures like prison or frat houses...)
Oddly enough, they seem to protect and take care of the other group; the apathetic, poorly socialized, weak, pathetic weirdos. Perhaps because that's where they find their support, their "vassals" or cronies, as it were. These two flavors come both conservative and liberal, mind you, and between these two tumors the actually good priests find it very hard to accomplish anything. It must be quite exhausting to have to navigate between the duplicitous "diplomacy" and self-interested double-speak of the former, and the dragging-down dead-weight intransigency of the latter.
But these pathological dynamics are only encouraged by the malignant networking and re-education that happens in the seminaries, making them live in their self-enclosed little society of salaried celibate bureaucrats and inculcating them with this exalted, arrogant self-image based on the dignity of the priesthood.
Breaking this elite asylum open would have been true aggiornamento.
But no, they are absolutely insistent on keeping that, even as they so blithely and iconoclastically destroyed the beauty of the traditional liturgy. Even as they threw out all the other markers of Catholic culture and identity, even as they trashed and made a mockery of everything else that mattered to Catholics save perhaps de fide dogma itself.
It just goes to show where these men's twisted priorities are.
The clergy has a two major cancers, two problematic groups. The first are the climbers, unctuous and ambitious, corrupt politicians like any other, good at smooth-talking and walking-the-line. They, especially, seem to be noticeably affected and disproportionately homosexual. If anywhere, that is where you'll find the so-called lavender mafia. Except they aren't all liberal (less and less so, in fact). It has nothing to do with progressive views, nor even necessarily with sexual orientation as conceived of today, but rather with the sort of homoerotic/"homosocial" loyalties/rivalries that develop in the upper ranks of authoritarian all male groups, ala "heroic" cultures like in the Iliad or Beowulf (or less heroic cultures like prison or frat houses...)
Oddly enough, they seem to protect and take care of the other group; the apathetic, poorly socialized, weak, pathetic weirdos. Perhaps because that's where they find their support, their "vassals" or cronies, as it were. These two flavors come both conservative and liberal, mind you, and between these two tumors the actually good priests find it very hard to accomplish anything. It must be quite exhausting to have to navigate between the duplicitous "diplomacy" and self-interested double-speak of the former, and the dragging-down dead-weight intransigency of the latter.
But these pathological dynamics are only encouraged by the malignant networking and re-education that happens in the seminaries, making them live in their self-enclosed little society of salaried celibate bureaucrats and inculcating them with this exalted, arrogant self-image based on the dignity of the priesthood.
Breaking this elite asylum open would have been true aggiornamento.
But no, they are absolutely insistent on keeping that, even as they so blithely and iconoclastically destroyed the beauty of the traditional liturgy. Even as they threw out all the other markers of Catholic culture and identity, even as they trashed and made a mockery of everything else that mattered to Catholics save perhaps de fide dogma itself.
It just goes to show where these men's twisted priorities are.
3 comments:
"It has nothing to do with progressive views, nor even necessarily with sexual orientation as conceived of today, but rather with the sort of homoerotic/"homosocial" loyalties/rivalries that develop in the upper ranks of authoritarian all male groups, ala "heroic" cultures like in the Iliad or Beowulf (or less heroic cultures like prison or frat houses...)"
a good example of something like this might be found in how the relationship between king henry and becket is portrayed in the 1964 film 'becket'. it is very typical of aristocracies of any sort, including the clerical aristocracy. this sort of strong emotion or ambivalent attachment between males combined with ambitious rivalry. it has certainly caused a lot of political problems throughout history.
Lol, the description of the "unctuous climber good at smooth talking and walking the line," and of "poorly socialized, pathetic weirdos," combined with imagery of homoerotic undercurrents kind of reminds me of the Draco Malfoy and Crabbe/Goyle relationship in HP. Albeit, those two aren't weak or diminutive, but they are the epitome of cronies, so, the analogy stands.
Ha! It's true though, good catch.
Post a Comment