PORTUGUÊS - "Resumo" após 'abstract'. (o texto, porém, é todo em inglês)
Abstract: The Vatican is worried about developments in Brazil. Its power slides in its main arena, and the Archbishop of Sao Paulo opens fire against the motto of the LGBT Parade this year, retorting, while quoting the Bible, that Jesus' love is absolutely contrasting with love the organization of the Parade defends. But we go deep in the NT and demonstrate that sayings of love attributed to Jesus are just insertions to the passage where the actual, original point is not love, but betrayal.
SKIP THE ABSTRACT TRANSLATED INTO PORTUGUESE (JUST BELOW) AND READ THE ARTICLE, FULLY IN ENGLISH
Resumo: O Vaticano está preocupado com o que acontece no Brasil. Seu poder escorrega justamente em sua arena mais importante e o arcebispo de São Paulo abre fogo contra o tema da Parada LGBT deste ano, clamando, enquanto cita trechos bíblicos, que o amor de Jesus é justamente o oposto do amor apregoado pela organização da parada. Nós vamos fundo no Novo Testamento para demonstrar que os dizeres sobre amor atribuídos a Jesus são inclusões posteriores à passagem bíblica em que o argumento original não é o amor, mas a traição.
The Highest Court in Brazil (the same that freed Cesar Battisti) has recently ruled that homos living as a couple hold the same rights as man-woman "stable unions". The Congregation of Brazilian Bishops (CNBB) immediately protested; politicians self-declared evangelicals followed suit. Nonetheless, that juridical pronouncement stayed way from establishing the same-sex marriage. Those religious-political groups, however, fear such next step may now be close.
The Parade and Jesus saying
More: Sunday (26) comes the big, annual LGBT Pride Parade in São Paulo, this time under the theme "Love one another. Homophobia is enough!"
Serious matter, making use of a sacred saying - then it was the archbishop of the state of Sao Paulo, D. Odilio Scherer, to voice against the initiative. He had an article entitled precisely "Love one another" published in the main paper O Estado de S.Paulo on 11.06, whereby he defends that by 'love' Jesus did not mean any love. Curiously - and precautiously - enough, Scherer does not ever dare naming the groups whose love (or, better, form of loving) would not, according to his reasoning and religious authority, be "legitimated" by Jesus' famous words. Homophobia is about to become a crime even in his jurisdiction. Despite, he proved determined to retribute by making use of the very same mandate - sort of 'upgraded' though. Let us see how.
The Church fights back
Overall, Scherer's move was smart - and plenty clear. In his article he argues that "love one another' is inseparable from an addition which distinguishes that teaching from earlier Old Testament versions: "as I [Jesus] have loved you". Based on this, Scherer makes the point that "deprived from this second part, 'love one another' becomes no more than general, ambiguous words, exposed to subjective manipulation and disrespectful scorn. Indeed, several alleged ways of loving are not recommended by Jesus: love that is possessive, jealous, irresponsible, anarchical, promiscuous, violent, sadic, debauched, selfish, 'bought or sold', incongruous with nature... These are not expressions of authentic love and, to begin with, cannot aim to be legitimized by Jesus' recommendation, 'love one another.'"
The archbishop finalizes by accusingly sentencing (highlight is mine):
Misusing such holy words in order to justify the opposite of what they mean is profoundly disrespectful and offensive to what Christians hold as wholly sacred and true.
Straightforward, no doubt - homosexuality would be exactly the 'opposite', the counteract of the love Jesus would be talking about.
I did not come to learn about any reaction to this article.
Analysis of the NT passages - love?
As a textual critic of the New Testament (see, e.g. JESUS AMALDIÇOA UMA FIGUEIRA [Jesus curses a fig tree]), it is my job to impartially show how the words of Jesus have been manipulated in the early texts, resulting in the distorted actual texts the Christians now take as the word of god.
And that is the case with the passage Scherer quotes selectively from. That is, he leaves out from his discourse parts of the passage of John that do not support his argumentation; passages referring to betrayal. Would this subject be secondary in the passage?
Quite the opposite. Actually, the quotes referring to love are 'dislocated', they do not fit the broader context. Let me demonstrate that.
By drawing on the New International Version, as we examine the chapter of John in question (the 13) - despite its being tactfully divided up in three parts, each showing a manipulative subtitle -, we can see that the main theme is clearly not love by betrayal. (I suggest that, after you are done with me here, carefully check the chapter for yourself in, e.g., http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/13.html). Jesus is obviously obsessed by the anticipation of being betrayed by his 'disciples'. This is the actual idea behind his washing 'dirty feet'. Indeed, Jesus pushes Judas into doing what he 'is about to do' and then predicts Peter denial of ever having knowing him, Jesus.
The passage is all over broken up by insertions about love, servant-and-master obedience, all of which does not fit at all.
In sum, Jesus was not showing his love when washing feet. The point he was making was pretty distant from any acceptable concept of love.
The whole gospels are 'defective', just as this passage is. Paul and his famous poem of love, also mentioned by Scherer as he pointed out 'undeniable qualities of Jesus' love', collides with Paul's declaring, elsewhere in the NT, that the Jews were about to justly perish for having killed the 'Lord of Glory' (First Epistle to the Corinthias 2:6, e.g. http://biblescripture.net/1Corinthians.html). An accusation the Catholic Church finally dropped on the occasion of the II Vatican Council.
Now turning to the organization of the Parade, it does not seem to scorn, or to intend to scorn, the doctrine, but tries to expose intolerance, which is not exclusive to catholics, but intolerance certainly has, in the condemnation of the Catholic Church of homosexuality, a factor that reinforces it, justifies it, makes it last.
How adherent to Jesus is love within the Church
I myself have suffered 'in the skin' the historical truculence (which often reaches the bloody level) which the Catholic Church finds right to deal with everyone who questions her immutable precepts, 'authorized' interpretations, self-declared favoritism before God.
In a rich parish of this giant city of Sao Paulo, I was the target of slander by the vicar, was offered no opportunity to voice my thoughts in response. The priest under that vicar was prohibited of rendering me any kind of attention. Were all these measures reactions to my sexual orientation?
'You can grow up, as long as you do not trust yourself (and thus do not Love)
I am not a lesbian. What has made the Church repeat his historial pattern - going against that Jesus' holy recommendation - was my disposition to leave behind the contradictions emanated from my now-gone passive catholicity. This implied a profound outcome: I was growing up.
According to another rule of the Catholic Church, whoever grows and thus gets to trust in him/herself more, s/he will no longer trust in God.
What does all this have to do with love? Quite a lot.
Growing up influences our capacity of loving under whichever of its several configurations. To mention one of them, only when we grow can we make loving one's enemies a reality.
Therefore, the 'loving one another as Jesus has loved' is exploited by the Catholic Church in a zone purposefully limited by a strange wish of perpetuating her own power, by perpetuating alienation, vulnerability, manipulation of her flock.
In almost every sermon, I have heard that whoever questions moves away from God, and this is lack of faith. If the Crucified Christ - a symbol at the service of that eternal manipulation - has never questioned anything due to his obvious condition (is dead), Jesus the Master questioned, questioned and questioned. And we hold the conviction that, for having questioned, he ended up in the cross. However, through catechism and convertion, one gets to adore the crucifix which points to a virtual reign, always placed well below the zone of questioning.
Being critically focused on this very zone, I now question: what kind of love really thrives in that reign?
Mariangela Pedro
mariangelapedro @ yahoo.com
@mariangelapedro
