First, a transcript of the article:
Televangelist Priest Michael Manning Confesses to Affair With Cousin
Updated: Friday, 08 Apr 2011, 8:14 AM EDT
...Published : Friday, 08 Apr 2011, 8:14 AM EDT
(NewsCore) - A California-based Catholic priest who runs a television ministry has taken a leave of absence after admitting to a sexual relationship with his second cousin, the San Bernardino County Sun reported Thursday.
The Rev. Michael Manning said he had stepped down from his position to reflect on the relationship with Nancy Kotowski, a school superintendent in Monterey County, Calif.
Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy which forbids them from all sexual activity, and Manning said he ended the relationship two years ago.
"We've been such good friends and there's a deep love we have for each other," Manning told the Sun.
"The sexuality was secondary. It's very hard when you care for someone, but I love my priesthood more. I admit the fact of my sinfulness. I've done wrong. That's why I've stopped."
Kotowski, 59, told The Monterey Herald the pair had considered getting married before deciding to end the relationship, which began after 30 years of friendship.
She also said she hoped their situation might lead to debate being renewed about clergy members remaining celibate.
Manning, 70, started his television ministry, Wordnet, in 1978. His weekly show titled "The Word in the World" is broadcast nationally on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.
Manning is a member of the Society of the Divine Word, a missionary community that has thousands of members throughout the world.
Source: San Bernardino County Sun
I'll address the squickiness of the cousin-lovin' first, as some readers might consider that the real problem in this story. First of all, we all know there is a social stigma that comes with marrying one's blood relatives, but did you kno...w that marrying your second cousin (the grandchild of your grandparent's sibling, in other words, a relative with whom you have a common great-grandparent) is legal in every state in the US? http://marriage.about.com/
The Bible, which so many like to claim as their moral compass, didn't have a problem with intertwining the branches of family trees either. Remember Lot and his daughters? Not that his family is a good example. Lot's daughters raped him shortly after he offered their virgin bodies to an angry mob to do with as they saw fit. (And he was the most righteous guy in town? Those are some standards to live up to.) Okay, so that was an extreme circumstance, and Lot's daughters wanted to continue their father's line. So, how about Abraham? He married his half-sister (the daughter of his father, but not his mother) (Genesis 20:12). And what did Abraham do when it was time for his son, Isaac, to receive a wife? He sent his servant on a mission to visit his relatives and bring back a wife for his son. Isaac loved Rebekah, so at least she didn't have to get him drunk, but maybe it was because they were merely first cousins once removed instead of father and daughter (Genesis 24). (Rebekah was Nahor's granddaughter, thus Abraham's great niece, aka the daughter of Isaac's first cousin). I digress.
I am not condoning incest in the least. Genetics is not something I desire to have in common with my romantic partners. I'm merely laying the point to rest before it becomes the focus of any debates that might surface from this rant. The genetics add a humorous note to an otherwise heartbreaking story, nothing more.
The real issue here, is love versus dogma. I know nothing of Michael Manning or Nancy Kotowski beyond what is presented in the article above and one other I read on the same topic. They may be real jerks, but that is irrelevant in this rant. This couple fell in love through a thirty-year friendship. That we could all be so lucky to find such affection in this world. The reports have the gall to refer to their relationship as an affair, as if he cheated on a wife. "But he's married to the church!" is a deplorable excuse. Having more faith and devotion to the church should warrant rewards, not restrictions. Any marriage that demands one spouse remain in lonely celibacy while the other receives the love an adoration of every person she meets is bound to crumble disastrously. Manning spent as many years as I have known on this planet building a relationship with a woman that most people only dream of having. And he threw it all away...for religion. He loved his priesthood more than his closest friend.
I can't help wondering, does he know why he's a Christian? I'm not talking about the euphoria he feels when he leads mass. I'm talking about why he's not a Muslim or Buddhist. Does he realize that the mere geographical location of his birth could have set him on a completely different path? I don't know Manning's path to priesthood, so I cannot say if is parents' beliefs influenced his, but the odds are high that they did, in either drawing him to Catholicism or pushing him away from another denomination or faith.
What kind of sick belief system would condemn love as a sin? Love is the greatest thing any of us will ever know. Not just romantic love, but the love that binds us to our friends and families. Love guards the gates of death, and keeps us from stepping through them. Those without love seldom live long, and those who know it's inimitable warmth can overcome any adversity to see it survive. How many of us would die for the ones we truly love? Parents can answer this without hesitation.
The Bible, which so many like to claim as their moral compass, didn't have a problem with intertwining the branches of family trees either. Remember Lot and his daughters? Not that his family is a good example. Lot's daughters raped him shortly after he offered their virgin bodies to an angry mob to do with as they saw fit. (And he was the most righteous guy in town? Those are some standards to live up to.) Okay, so that was an extreme circumstance, and Lot's daughters wanted to continue their father's line. So, how about Abraham? He married his half-sister (the daughter of his father, but not his mother) (Genesis 20:12). And what did Abraham do when it was time for his son, Isaac, to receive a wife? He sent his servant on a mission to visit his relatives and bring back a wife for his son. Isaac loved Rebekah, so at least she didn't have to get him drunk, but maybe it was because they were merely first cousins once removed instead of father and daughter (Genesis 24). (Rebekah was Nahor's granddaughter, thus Abraham's great niece, aka the daughter of Isaac's first cousin). I digress.
I am not condoning incest in the least. Genetics is not something I desire to have in common with my romantic partners. I'm merely laying the point to rest before it becomes the focus of any debates that might surface from this rant. The genetics add a humorous note to an otherwise heartbreaking story, nothing more.
The real issue here, is love versus dogma. I know nothing of Michael Manning or Nancy Kotowski beyond what is presented in the article above and one other I read on the same topic. They may be real jerks, but that is irrelevant in this rant. This couple fell in love through a thirty-year friendship. That we could all be so lucky to find such affection in this world. The reports have the gall to refer to their relationship as an affair, as if he cheated on a wife. "But he's married to the church!" is a deplorable excuse. Having more faith and devotion to the church should warrant rewards, not restrictions. Any marriage that demands one spouse remain in lonely celibacy while the other receives the love an adoration of every person she meets is bound to crumble disastrously. Manning spent as many years as I have known on this planet building a relationship with a woman that most people only dream of having. And he threw it all away...for religion. He loved his priesthood more than his closest friend.
I can't help wondering, does he know why he's a Christian? I'm not talking about the euphoria he feels when he leads mass. I'm talking about why he's not a Muslim or Buddhist. Does he realize that the mere geographical location of his birth could have set him on a completely different path? I don't know Manning's path to priesthood, so I cannot say if is parents' beliefs influenced his, but the odds are high that they did, in either drawing him to Catholicism or pushing him away from another denomination or faith.
What kind of sick belief system would condemn love as a sin? Love is the greatest thing any of us will ever know. Not just romantic love, but the love that binds us to our friends and families. Love guards the gates of death, and keeps us from stepping through them. Those without love seldom live long, and those who know it's inimitable warmth can overcome any adversity to see it survive. How many of us would die for the ones we truly love? Parents can answer this without hesitation.
Love could cure the world if we'd only spend less of it on ourselves and extend it to each other. Yet we continue to promote hatred and exclusionism, drawing lines between theologies, races, and even politics. We all want to be right, but... how many of us stop to consider that as much as our views make sense to us, our opponents' views seem just as reasonable from their perspectives?
What becomes of us when we are denied love, or worse, deny it? We lose our humanity. Our empathy and compassion fade as we lose touch with our fellow humans. The sexual repression forced upon priests and other conservative religious leaders makes too many of them into monsters. A single rule that runs the risk of making a victim of a single person without any benefit to anyone else warrants its destruction. The idea of a greater good raises many complex possibilities for moral conflicts, but I'm not talking about the greater good. I'm talking about a rule that does nothing to benefit anyone and makes monsters of otherwise good people. Such a rule spits in the face of nature, and if you're a believer, in the face of the creator.
If you believe a god created everything in existence, then you believe that the god made us as we are. That god designed us to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways. We flee from pain. We seek food when hungry. We seek sex when we meet a compatible mate. Some religions have made a habit of saying that sex is wrong. Why? Why if their god created the natural laws of the world would that one natural response be wrong? Sex is necessary to our mental, emotional, and physical health. For crying in a bucket, sex is the only reason any of us are sitting here! (I'm sorry, that statement was exclusionary to IVF babies. Most of us are sitting here because of sex. ^_^)
I'm not saying we should all start humping in the streets. I'm not even condoning sex on the first, second, or third dates. Promiscuity is bad in its own right as it violates trust, breaks hearts, and spreads disease. Moderation is key in all things. But we have to stop demonizing sex. Sex is a reward for having a healthy, honest relationship. Why bother preaching love if you will deny yourself of it's most intimate beauty? It's like winning in the Olympics then refusing your medal.
I cannot fathom why religions that preach love would condemn it's ultimate expression, unless the reason is purely for controlling the masses. My observations on the issue have taken me through this line of thinking: Why would churches and mosques make sex out to be evil? To keep us from breeding freely. Why would that be a problem? Wouldn't a large population mean more followers? More tithing? Not if that breeding happens between couples of different religions. Religions try to confine sex to marriage to prevent their followers from having children that are raised for other religions. Larger populations in other religions mean more religious leaders to convert followers and more soldiers to kill in the names of their beliefs. This is also why interfaith marriages are so difficult to this day. Even spouses, people who love each other enough to make an honest attempt at devoting their lives to each other want their children raised in their own individual faiths.
Condemning love? THAT is a sin. Anyone who says otherwise is not human. And this is why my heart goes out to Rev. Michael Manning and Nancy Kotowski, a modern Romeo and Juliet, torn apart by faith. Faith, which Merriam-Webster defines as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
What becomes of us when we are denied love, or worse, deny it? We lose our humanity. Our empathy and compassion fade as we lose touch with our fellow humans. The sexual repression forced upon priests and other conservative religious leaders makes too many of them into monsters. A single rule that runs the risk of making a victim of a single person without any benefit to anyone else warrants its destruction. The idea of a greater good raises many complex possibilities for moral conflicts, but I'm not talking about the greater good. I'm talking about a rule that does nothing to benefit anyone and makes monsters of otherwise good people. Such a rule spits in the face of nature, and if you're a believer, in the face of the creator.
If you believe a god created everything in existence, then you believe that the god made us as we are. That god designed us to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways. We flee from pain. We seek food when hungry. We seek sex when we meet a compatible mate. Some religions have made a habit of saying that sex is wrong. Why? Why if their god created the natural laws of the world would that one natural response be wrong? Sex is necessary to our mental, emotional, and physical health. For crying in a bucket, sex is the only reason any of us are sitting here! (I'm sorry, that statement was exclusionary to IVF babies. Most of us are sitting here because of sex. ^_^)
I'm not saying we should all start humping in the streets. I'm not even condoning sex on the first, second, or third dates. Promiscuity is bad in its own right as it violates trust, breaks hearts, and spreads disease. Moderation is key in all things. But we have to stop demonizing sex. Sex is a reward for having a healthy, honest relationship. Why bother preaching love if you will deny yourself of it's most intimate beauty? It's like winning in the Olympics then refusing your medal.
I cannot fathom why religions that preach love would condemn it's ultimate expression, unless the reason is purely for controlling the masses. My observations on the issue have taken me through this line of thinking: Why would churches and mosques make sex out to be evil? To keep us from breeding freely. Why would that be a problem? Wouldn't a large population mean more followers? More tithing? Not if that breeding happens between couples of different religions. Religions try to confine sex to marriage to prevent their followers from having children that are raised for other religions. Larger populations in other religions mean more religious leaders to convert followers and more soldiers to kill in the names of their beliefs. This is also why interfaith marriages are so difficult to this day. Even spouses, people who love each other enough to make an honest attempt at devoting their lives to each other want their children raised in their own individual faiths.
Condemning love? THAT is a sin. Anyone who says otherwise is not human. And this is why my heart goes out to Rev. Michael Manning and Nancy Kotowski, a modern Romeo and Juliet, torn apart by faith. Faith, which Merriam-Webster defines as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
No comments:
Post a Comment