Archive for the ‘Sexuality’ Category

Metropolitan Opera's performance of "Carmen" by Bizet (or) What *is* Carmen?

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Last time took eight to see “Turandot” by Puccini. Fairly full theater. People came up to us with tears in their eyes (I am not making that up) to express how much they appreciate young people coming to see the opera.

This time we had eleven. Theater was packed. And quite a few young people – children and college age. Why was “Carmen” even more popular than “Turandot”? Our international friends said “‘Carmen’ is very famous!” I saw more people from University Baptist Church this time.

To be honest after the first half hour I was a bit embarrassed. “Uh oh. Wonder what our Chinese friends are thinking. Wonder if they wish they had not come. Very very different from ‘Turandot’”. The opening songs are about soldiers hanging around and pawing at Micaela (Barbara Frittoli) and leering at the cigarette girls who sit around wiping sweat from their half-exposed bodies. Real high drama there.

And then you get Carmen (Elena Garanca – whom I saw also in Rossini’s “La Cenerentola”). With cleavage and at least one leg showing at all times. Who is seriously bad news.

If you want her then she does not want you. If you do not want her then she wants you. And if she wants you better watch out!

Si je t’aime, si je t’aime prend garde a toi!

Our humble soldier Don Jose (Roberto Alagna) – who already has a girlfriend – unfortunately attracts the attention of Carmen who trains her wiles on him like a laser beam. Dude you are so dead. It does not take long before Don Jose is making out with Carmen and letting her escape from arrest and planning to get together with her later at a resort.

What the heck is this opera about?!? At first glance it seems dirty and sleazy and slutty. Not at all like “Turandot” in which the passionate love of Calaf breaks through the cold cruelty of the princess Turandot – all very noble virtuous and glorious. This is about a respected soldier and good son with a nice girlfriend who throws it all away because some hot temptress hands him a flower.

Speaking of “love is like a bird”. The first act talks a lot about love – l’amour. But it does not seem to be about love so much as desire or shall we say lust. “I love you” seems to mean not much more than “you’re cute and I want to have sex with you”.

So what is going on here? What is Bizet trying to say? Who – or should we say what – exactly is Carmen?

There are several different approaches I would suggest.

The first is rather simplistic morality play. “Stay away from bad girls”. Something like that. No doubt feminist literary scholars would have something to say about “the patriarchal warnings against the archetypal temptress” motif – and frankly they would be at least partly right. Don Jose has a nice girlfriend who goes to church brings him letters from his momma and won’t even kiss him on the lips. Along comes the hot hussy Carmen with her blazing unrestrained sexuality. Before you know it Don Jose is hanging out with bandits and breaking his momma’s heart and strangling said hussy and getting executed. Bad bad bad. Sort of “Reefer Madness” meets “Fatal Attraction”.

(Yeah I don’t know where that came from either.)

Maybe. But that seems too simplistic.

At one point it suddenly hit me just who or what Carmen is.

Freedom.

She sings about “I will live free or die free”. She represents perhaps the freedom to throw off the constraints of law responsibility and commitment. Don Jose is not just a guy – he is a soldier. He obeys orders and enforces the law. He does not just go off with Carmen – he becomes a bandit. He leaves behind society with its laws and regulations. Perhaps that helps explain the famous habanera “L’amour est un oiseau rebelle”:

Love is a rebellious bird… He has never known law. If you don’t love me I will love you. If I love you – you better watch out!

Carmen will not be imprisoned – no handcuffs or jail for her! Don Jose spends time in jail because he sets her free – but what gets him through that time is the flower Carmen gave him. If you do not love freedom – then freedom will come hunting for you. And if freedom comes after you – better watch out! Don Jose will not live without freedom (Carmen). The opera seems largely about freedom and the desire for freedom.

I will not suggest that freedom is unambiguously good in the opera. What happens when the desire for freedom means you reject duty and obedience and commitment? Freedom yes – but balanced with responsibility and self-control? Perhaps the opera also explores the ambiguity of freedom.

There is another theme which has to do with ethnicity and class. Sure we may fault Carmen for being the temptress. But she is not just a woman. She is a gypsy. A member of an ethnic group – the Roma(ny) – that even today is considered outcast and undesirable in Europe. How else will these people fight back against a (Spanish European) society that rejects them and marginalizes them? Can we blame them when they turn to (a) sex and (b) crime to get what they want – or need? And how noble are these “white” Europeans who are quite happy to get their booze and cigarettes and sex and black market goods from gypsies? And who think torturing and killing bulls is somehow more noble and civilized? Is not the final act with its parade of the different kinds of bullfighter a kind of satire? How silly!

Toreador, toreador!

And notice how the toreador desires and wins Carmen – and transforms her into a proper Spanish lady. Carmen has gone from marginalized outcast gypsy to accepted member of Spanish high society. (I am reminded of how the prostitute civilizes Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh – but cannot quite make the connection.)

One last theme. Fate and free will. This is particularly evident when Don Jose and Carmen are with the bandits in the mountains. Two of the woman consults the cards to find out their fortunes. Wealth and fame. Sounds great. So does Carmen. Death and death. She knows ahead of time that Don Jose will kill her. And no matter how many times she turns the cards the result is the same. Death and death.

Oddly enough she seems resigned to this. “Oh well. Nothing I can do. The cards say I am going to die. Guess I better just follow the script to its end”. She convinces herself that she does not have the freedom – free will – to make different choices and change course. In a way she brings about the very “fate” she fears. One is reminded of how Voldemort creates his own downfall in the Harry Potter books because he is obsessed with a misunderstood prophecy.

So perhaps there are many different themes and issues that drive the opera – all at the same time. Women and sexuality. Race and class. Freedom and its ambiguity. Fate and free will.

Okay – enough about the opera. What about the performance?

Outstanding of course. The music was energetic and delightful. The acting solid. The singing exceptional. And the pas de deux (sp?) that opened each act masterful. I did find the physicality of the performance a bit distracting. Woman getting pawed and groped. Don Jose lying down on Carmen whose legs are spread wide. Pushing hitting fighting. Even Rene Fleming commented and asked if the singers felt bruised after their performance.

The sets were a bit drab but otherwise brilliant – giant rotating circular walls?!? Now it’s a jail… now it’s a town square. Now it’s a town square… now it’s the inside of a bullfighting ring. Amazing. Clearly only the best work for the Met.

My favorite part by far was when Rene Fleming was interviewing Escamillo (performed by… don’t seem to have his name available). Apparently the bass performer was sick and this guy got a call that morning at like 10:00 a.m. “Hey um we need you to sing Escamillo at the Met today”. You could not tell this man had filled in on such short notice. That alone earns my respect.

Even better she asked how he became an opera singer. Well apparently he used to be a certified accountant in his native New Zealand. Around age 30 or 31 decided he wanted to sing opera. Gotta love it. We all had a good laugh.

“I’m sick of this pastoring gig. Think I’ll join the opera”.

Toreador, toreador! L’amour t’attend!

Hey. A guy can dream.

Posted in Opera, Sexuality, Society and Culture, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Irony – thy name is "Episcopal"

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

Frankly I have not paid much attention to this because I do not care an whole lot.

The Rev. Alberto Cutié, the celebrity priest removed from his Miami Beach church after photos of him kissing and embracing a woman appeared in the pages of a Spanish-language magazine earlier this month, has left the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami to join the Episcopal church and announced that he will marry the woman he has dated for two years.

Read the whole thing at Miam Herald. You do not have to register.

You may not have followed this closely but perhaps you heard about this. The paragraph above is remarkably well written – good journalism if nothing else – because in just a couple sentences you get the picture. (I taught writing to university students for about a year. I try to recognize and acknowledge when people write well.) Catholic priest has relationship with woman. Comes to public light. Catholic priest leaves Catholic church – or does he? therein lies a rub – and joins Episcopal Church.

I have no interest in criticizing or judging Father Alberto Cutie. Really. Yeah he broke his vows. Yeah he should not have been doing that while a Catholic priest. But celibacy has got to be tough. Especially when you meet a woman you really like. Should he have left the Catholic church before pursuing this relationship? Yeah probably. But think about the practicality of that. (Counterargument below – he may have made his vows of celibacy while in this relationship. But set that aside for a moment.) If you want to leave the Catholic church in order to pursue a relationship with a woman…

Think about it. How can you even consider leaving (the “honorable” thing to do) before you have already started down that road? And are you really going to leave all that behind when you have been “dating”? One cannot terribly blame a fellow for pursuing that relationship to some extent before saying “oh man – I cannot keep doing this and remain a Catholic priest”.

Anyways. That is not what this post is about.

This post is about the Episcopal Church. And how Episcopal bishop Leo Frade of Southeast Florida has handled the matter.

“Well. What a great opportunity to kick the Catholic Church in the nuts”.

There is a certain diseased cynicism in immediately and publicly saying “Well – we would love to have this guy come join the Episcopal church. Our church allows clergy to get some”. Rank self-serving opportunism.

One wise parish priest in Baton Rouge summarized the problem in the Episcopal Church this way. “They have turned pastoral theology into dogma”.

But one wonders if this is even pastoral theology. Certainly not very pastoral toward the Catholic church or those whom Father Curie served. The reporter nails it with more good journalism:

At a press conference late Thursday afternoon, Archdiocese of Miami officials expressed disappointment in Cutié and had strong words for the Episcopal Church, especially Bishop Frade.

”This is truly a setback for ecunemical relations and cooperation between us. The Archdiocese have never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination,” said Archbishop John Favalora. He said he had not heard from Frade about the transition and had not spoken to Cutié since May 5, adding that Cutié never told the archbishop he wanted to get married.

Great quote. “We don’t made a big public display when your guys join us. But when one of us joins you… you rub our faces in it”. Favalora is a real Christian bishop who refrains from calling Bishop Frade… a jerk.

But one more point. And I posted this over at Midwest Conservative Journal (which I no longer visit much – just interested in other issues right now):

“Not so, Bishop Frade said Thursday afternoon. ‘That promise [his vow of celibacy] is not recognized by our church. If you can find it in the Bible that priests should be celibate, that will be corrected,’ Frade said.”

Oh the rich irony.

Person A leaves Church C and joins Church E. Church C says “Person A is still bound by the rules of Church C to which he agreed”. Church E says “Rubbish – we do not recognize that prior commitment within Church C”.

And invokes the Bible while they are at it. (Fair enough.)

This is the rhetoric when:

A = guy who likes women (fair enough I suppose)
C = Catholic Church
E = Episcopal Church

Ah… but when:

A = a congregation or bishop committed to traditional Anglicanism
C = *Episcopal Church*
E = *Anglican Church* (or a diocese/province committed to traditional Anglicanism)

Then the rhetoric changes dramatically.

“Bishop/Congregation A is still bound by the rules of Church C [here C = Episcopal] to which he/they agreed. And we do not care what the Bible says on this matter. All your parish property is now belong to us. See you in court”.

Wow.

Posted in Anglicanism, Media, News, Roman Catholicism, Sexuality | No Comments »

Cracks in the Plating – Isaiah 56

Sunday, August 17th, 2008

There has been an exchange of unusual quality over at TitusOneNine concerning the issue of same-sex relations and the classic “shellfish” argument. By this I mean those who take the more “liberal” view (same-sex relations are not inherently sinful and those who engage in such – especially in “committed” relationships – should not be disqualified from ordained leadership in the church) have done a better-than-usual job of explaining and defending their view. Ross and D. C. (their monikers) have made some cogent points.

The bottom line is still this:

#67 Rick in Louisiana makes a very thoughtful reply, including among other things:

(Do those who say such also concede that the Bible never ever teaches that same-sex relations are fine? I hope so. I hope they have the honesty and intellectual rigor to say “the Bible does not support us on the matter of homosexual behavior – we just think the Bible is wrong on this point”. And to their credit some do say this.)

Yes, I’ll concede that.  When the Bible speaks explicitly about homosexuality, it always speaks against it.  You can quibble a little about definitions and cultural practices and so on, but when all is said and done, the Bible condemns homosexuality. [emphasis added]

That is not entirely correct. (And this is quibbling but the point must be made.) The Bible does not condemn “homosexual-ity” but more precisely same-sex relations. (The Bible does not condemn heterosexual-ity but does have some things to say about adultery.)

I occasionally discern in Scripture… I am not sure quite what to call them… little hints? vectors? that perhaps somehow – exactly how we might debate – those who (a) experience same-sex attraction or more precisely (and less clearly) (b) engage in same-sex relations just might somehow be welcome in the covenant community.

Cracks in the plating. The metal plating of my conviction(s).

To whit check out Isaiah 56:4-5:

For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant– 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

The passage as a whole is about how those who have been excluded from the covenant community (or people of God) will no longer be excluded. This includes (a) foreigners and (b) eunuchs. Focus on eunuchs for a moment. Men who (looking back at the Torah) have had testicles and/or penis removed. Sexually… damaged? Such that among other things they cannot produce children.

We might legitimately (and perhaps correctly) note that eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals (again to be more precise those who experience and act upon same-sex attraction). Eunuchs do not engage in same-sex relations. They do not normally engage in any kind of sexual relations. But I could not help but think of gay-lesbian-bisexual persons when I read this text. And more importantly note the vector of the prophecy. That those who have been excluded will one day be included.

This is not the only time or place I have noticed a verse or two that just might subvert the larger sexual ethic. I do not deny or reject the sexual ethic. But honesty requires me to note those places where at least I pause and wonder.

Posted in Bible, Christian Practice, Hebrew Bible, Sexuality | No Comments »

Good propaganda and sex in science-fiction

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

Monday is “Star Trek: Enterprise” night.

One of the episodes last night was “Stigma“. From Trek Nation:

While Enterprise visits a planet where an Interspecies Medical Exchange conference is taking place, Dr. Phlox tries to obtain research on a terminal disease from the Vulcan contingency there. But he must not reveal that T’Pol has contracted this disease, because that knowledge would forever stigmatize her among her people.

Phlox and T'PolThere are – and this is a general rule among television shows in general and “Star Trek” is no exception – two story-lines. The second is one of Phlox’ wives comes to visit. The first is T’Pol has this disease that normally is associated with the “minority” of Vulcans who engage in “unacceptable intimate behavior” namely mind-melds.

The first story (“main arc”) is transparently about homosexuality and AIDS. The “minority” who mind-meld represent those who engage in homosexual relations. P’nar Syndrome represents AIDS – which is associated with the “minority” although T’Pol is not a member of that group. She contracted P’nar Syndrome because of a psychic assault (forced mind-meld).

I am a moderately conservative Christian pastor who happens to agree with the more traditional teaching of the Christian church on same-sex relations. But I must admit as propaganda goes this is well done. The propaganda (or not-so-hidden agenda) does not overwhelm the story which stands well on its own. The issue is plausible. Some Vulcans mind-meld but for the last one thousand years this has become less tolerated in Vulcan society. Those who engage in mind-melds sometimes contract a particular medical condition. One sympathizes with T’Pol, with the scientist who “comes out” during the hearing, with Captain Archer. This is what good science-fiction is about. Exploring real issues in alternative settings.

(There are of course examples where this sort of thing is very badly done.)

The other story (“secondary arc”) is genuinely funny. Feezal – Phlox’ wife – is brilliant, charming, and gorgeous and quickly starts putting major moves on Commander Tucker who is a good gentleman from Florida who thinks it is just plain wrong to fool around with another man’s – I mean sentient being’s – spouse. He eventually dares discuss this with Phlox.

“I think your wife has been making… advances to me”.

“Sexual advances?” (Voice and eyelids lowered.)

Oh shoot. Here it comes. Phlox is gonna beat the tar out of Tucker.

Phlox then grins like a Cheshire cat. “Mmm… did she give you a rose petal bath?”

It quickly becomes apparent that Phlox thinks it’s just fantastic that his wife is hot stuff and is interested in Tucker and wonders why on earth Tucker is not more supportive of good interspecies relations. Nudge nudge wink wink!

“She’s your wife!”

Phlox explains that Tucker is confusing human morality with Denobulan culture.

Again – I am a moderately conservative Christian pastor who agrees with traditional Church teaching. But again – this is good propaganda. The situation is plausible. The message does not overwhelm the quality of the episode. Heck – it’s funny when Phlox grins at the idea that one of his shipmates is enjoying what a fantastic woman his wife is.

I happen to believe that if God has created multiple worlds with multiple “sentient species” (other people who image God) then the divine guidelines for what is moral and just will be similar. And so I do not quite buy that “what is considered wrong for humans is just smokin’ for Denobulans”. But if this is propaganda – sexual mores are arbitrary and one day we will get past all this rubbish – then I must admit it is good propaganda. A serious story-line balanced with one that is funny. Plausible situations that explore in an alternative setting current social-cultural issues that human beings face. 

This is what science-fiction is to a large extent all about.

One last note. Even if one agrees with traditional Church teaching on sexual relations (same-sex relations or extra-marital relations) one cannot argue with part of what “Stigma” is trying to say. That even if one does not approve of what the “minority” does they still deserve compassion and fair treatment. Should the junior scientist lose his job when he “comes out”? Should Vulcan scientists not work their tails off to find effective treatments for P’nar Syndrome? Of course not. And similarly of course even if one does not approve of certain sexual behaviors (same-sex or extra-marital and so on) then one should still support compassion and fair treatment.

Phlox to Feezal: “It’s too bad you and Commander Tucker didn’t get to know each other better”. Pause.

“Uh… I gotta go. The plasma conduits are overheating. Ma’am, it was nice meeting you”.

That’s good writing. Say no more. You know what I mean?

Posted in Art, Media, Sexuality | No Comments »

Sab- (or) Holy Snugglebunnies, part III

Monday, October 30th, 2006

Sab- (or) Holy Snugglebunnies, part III

Richard M. Wright

(Warning: This article contains mature content.)

(Note: This article was first written for the church newsletter. Because it was going to a broad audience I used the euphemism “snugglebunnies”. Some parents with young children might feel that “look, I’m not afraid to talk about sex, but I was hoping to give my 6 year old a couple more years before explaining it”. However – here on the Internet… I could very comfortably switch out snugglebunnies for “sex”. Cut me some slack.)

(The Sab- is going somewhere. Trust me.)

There is a theological theme that has been… Play.

Many years ago during that tender first year I bought a book called The New Joy of Snugglebunnies* by Alex Comfort. Have hardly looked at it since then. But I will never forget something the author states in the introductory chapter. That snugglebunnies is for adults a “form of play.” (It is much more than that of course. But let me focus on that important insight. Snugglebunnies is fun. Play-ful.)

A few weeks ago I shared how Kevin Carroll – one of the speakers at the Catalyst Conference in Georgia – said adults do not play enough. (Not referring to snugglebunnies.) What if modern Western technological society… what if our culture… does not allow enough time/opportunity/permission for play? For children as well as adults? What happens if the deep human need for play goes unfulfilled?

Let us put the pieces together. Human beings need play. The need for play goes unsatisfied. Snugglebunnies is a form of play.

Then perhaps human beings will sometimes meet that need through forms of snugglebunnies that are broken and distorted. Before marriage. Not within marriage. Not with anybody. Hurt others. Hurt themselves. And so on.

Dare we consider that failure to play enough… perhaps even the failure to practice Sab- keeping… is one of the causes of s’ual sin? Our exceptional minister with youth recently urged dads to pay attention to their daughters – or their daughters might try to meet that need elsewhere and less appropriately. Perhaps we can say, “Parents – play with your kids!”

Speaking of Sab- keeping and snugglebunnies… Turns out the Jewish rabbis taught that snugglebunnies on Sab- is actually a mitzvah. A commandment. That one of the benefits of observing a whole day of rest/play/prayer/worship is it provides time/opportunity/permission for snugglebunnies. (No books to recommend. Go write your own.)

Children or not… married or single… do we play enough?

*(Borrowed from Opus the Penguin, “Broome County”)

Posted in Christian Practice, Sabbath, Sexuality | No Comments »