Friday, May 19, 2006

Today's Chicago Sun Times -- More on Sexuality at the Movies

I do a lot of print interviews, and it's more usual than not that I'm disappointed with the way my message is portrayed.

So, I was delighted to read this morning Catherine Falsani's interview with me in The Chicago Sun Times. This is the first article I've read that focuses on the sexual messages of The Davinci Code. Here's a piece of what she wrote:

Jesus could feel all that humans do -- joy, love, sorrow, anger, fear, pain -- why would he not also feel sexual? That isn't sinful.

It's just human.

And it doesn't mean that he had to have sex to be sexual.


But what if Jesus did?


How, exactly, would that threaten the very foundations of the Christian faith? A faith that is, if I'm not mistaken, based on the fact that Jesus came to Earth and sacrificed his sinless human life on the cross to redeem the rest of humanity, so that by faith, through grace, we all could be saved.


A faith that is not, unless I'm overlooking something, based on the idea that Jesus was a celibate man who neither married nor fathered children.


If that isn't good enough, she features the work of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing and quotes me extensively.

Here's the link to the article -- http://www.suntimes.com/output/falsani/cst-nws-fals19.html

I'm so pleased with this column -- well, everything except the quote that says I look more Martha Stewart than Carrie Bradshaw...

Have a great weekend.

Rev. Debra

3 comments:

Philocrites said...

Debra, in the quest for a soundbite you got Catholic doctrines confused. The "immaculate conception" is a much, much later doctrine, articulated by Pope Pius IX in 1854. It's the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without the taint of original sin. The doctrine of the incarnation is the one about Jesus' conception. (It's celebrated as the annunciation.)

Anonymous said...

I searched for this blog so I could post a comment about the common and incorrect use of the term "immaculate conception". Obviously, someone beat me to it. I would just like to add that this is something I expect from the average person who really knows nothing about the beliefs of Catholics. I expected more from an educated and ordained minister. It is just this kind of ignorance that leads to the common stereotypes that give Catholics a bad name. Just in case you didn't already know, Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution. The Pope is only infallible when he is speaking on matters of faith. The Church is not just prolife when it comes to fetuses. All human life is of equal value. It is NOT a sin to be gay. Catholics and evangelical fundamentalist chritians are not the same thing. Catholics are tollerant of those who do not share their beliefs. Catholics are compassionate when it comes to people who have made bad choices in their lives. Catholics will reach out to those in need without requiring conversion or repentance. Those are just a few things I needed to say.

Rev. Debra W. Haffner said...

Thanks for these two posts. Of course, anonymous, I know these things about Catholic teachings, and I have great appreciation for the work of groups like Catholics for A Free Choice.

To Philocrites, I was refering in the interview to the writings of the early "church fathers" who wrote about Mary being the new Eve. You are right in that the IC became dogma in 1854; the feast of the IC actually dates back to 1476 according to the Catholic encylopedia. What I was remembering were the early church writings on the issue. The incarnation is indeed in the gospels as is the identification of Mary as a virgin.