Monday, 5 January 2009

No offence intended...

One would think, in this wonderful Christmas season with Epiphany beckoning, that I would not be so crotchety today. I'll admit I do not know what set me off. Perhaps it is that an old acquaintance was asking me if I'd written any new essays for my Internet site recently. I should indeed like to do so soon, but I suppose I wonder if they do anyone any good in the first place. Considering some of the email I receive, I wonder if those who ask me about mediaeval instruments of torture, Wiccan spells, etc., have taken even the most cursory glance at the essays. (Some Freudian oddity wanted to know how I could deal with Julian of Norwich's treatment of Christ's blood, and hadn't I found it disgusting. My response was that I hope not - having just drank some. I'm sure my faithful readers catch my reference to the Eucharist, but it just occurred to me that I might be thought either a deviant or a vampire by those with no sense of doctrine or irony.)

You all know of my love for the theatre - and, since the musical "1776" was hardly a noble effort (though it featured some fine actors), don't ask me why this one line remained in my memory. During disputes about the composition of the declaration of independence, John Adams scoffs, "It's a revolution, damn it! We're going to have to offend somebody!"

Well, revolutions (and treason... anarchist though I am at heart) are hardly my style. In fact, I'm one who dislikes confrontation. But I am so very tired of how easily people become offended today - and it's especially popular in religious circles. Perhaps I haven't written any essays recently because a situation exists now which is very new in the world of scholarship/theology. Apparently one must know every last detail of every past or present theologian's writings and biographies (probably down to what jokes he made when having a pint with friends in the days when York's oldest pub was new - or what dinner guests he had in 331 AD), and not quote anyone who ever said or did anything that could offend anyone today.

It's difficult - not being able to quote the patristic theologians because they were judged misogynist or class conscious - or medievalists who were elitist about the souls of human animals (as if Christ's assuming humanity meant that humans were dignified over giraffes... better start boiling the pot of oil for my execution, because I'd definitely say the human is unique...). I cannot mention the greatest living theologians - there's going to be someone, somewhere, who is offended by what they support or do not support. Lord have mercy, I recall one writer's going on about the 'racism' of Julian's referring to dark skinned demonic figures, I'm sure similar to those in medieval art (which certainly resemble no African I've ever seen - or one Julian would have seen had she ever seen an African in the first place.) I suppose there are those wild enough to think I'm anti-Semitic because I love the gospel of John (despite his being a Jewish evangelist writing of quite a distinguished Jewish carpenter... oh, heavens, I'm sure I've just offended someone by implying John had to be a male.)

Writing this reminds me of a few incidents from 20 years ago or so. I remember a discussion of the outstanding achievements of those who were disabled, and I spoke of a high regard for Helen Keller - this was dismissed with "she believed in abortion." (I've no idea if that is so, nor do I ever recall anything I read of hers which even referenced that topic, but let's just say the discussion was over.) I've been guilty of worse, of course, referencing Annibale Bugnini's work on the liturgy... supposedly he was a Freemason infiltrating the Curia, perhaps as an agent of the anti-Christ. (I haven't any notion of whether Bugnini was a Freemason, though, if so, that would hardly give him unique status in Rome.)

It is very frustrating - not being able to quote some of the most notable theology of the past 2,000 years (and earlier), because the writer might not support (or did, or does, support) some unrelated matter which would cause offence to the easily offended. Since when does mentioning excellent points mean that one must agree with every statement of another's life?

No comments: