Mel Gibson’s wife has filed for divorce. His behavior over the years has been provoking both his alcoholism and his remarks that she would not be saved because she was an Anglican. Gibson himself belongs to a schismatic group so the latter remark was especially puzzling.
I have observed over the years that individuals and societies that are overly-rigid tend to self-destruct in a spectacular way. Individuals tend to adopt some ultra –rigid form of their religion. It is misleading to call this form fundamentalist or conservative, because one can conserve one’s beliefs and traditions and adhere to the fundamentals of one’s faith without being rigid.
I think that people become rigid because they fear the chaos that they sense in themselves, and adopt rigidity as a defense against it. I was told the story of one Anglo-Catholic priest who had screaming fits if an altar boy made a slight mistake in the ritual. The priest was obviously gay and was trying hard not to give in to his desires, and felt that the slightest deviation or laxity would lead to chaos.
Northeasterners have resented the implication that they are less moral than the Bible Belt. The Northeast has a low divorce rate; the Bible Belt has a high divorce rate. Northeasterners are much more tolerant of sex before marriage; teenagers in the Bible Belt disapprove of sex before mirage and run off to Gatlinburg for a quickie marriage, which is then followed by a divorce.
A stable society (or personality) can tolerate much more diversity than an unstable can.
The Northeast is much more stable (and also older and more female) than the Bible Belt, which upholds strict standards in a defense against the chaos of human passions.
Rigidity is often accompanied by brittleness, and leads to spectacular downfalls. Such downfalls are not the result of hypocrisy, but of an attempt to control chaos by rigid and unbending rules. Such an attempt doesn’t work very well; a person of inner virtue and strength and stability will not worry so much about minor things, but will trust himself to do the right thing in normal circumstances.
Well said.
Leon, your comments about rigidity gave me pause in evaluating my own life. Thank you so much.
Perhaps the rigidity you describe is a fundamental reason for the collapse of Catholicisim in the West after Vatican II. As I said in another comment thread on this blog, I am convinced that Vatican II did to the Church what Gorbachev’s attempt at reform did to the Soviet Union.
I think you may be on to something in reference to the rigidity of moral forms being behind the collapse into chaos. People often forget how morally ambiguous Catholic societies were in the past (concubinage, systematized adultery amongst the ruling class, etc.) and seem to think that religious hegemony amounts to everyone following the dominant ideology to the t. Such is never the case, and I would ask if it would even be desirable.
In any case, it would seem to me that, in the case of sexual rigidity, the more rigid the tree, the harder it falls.
Excellent post. Well said. The distinction made between conservative/fundamental and rigid is well made.
“an attempt to control chaos by rigid and unbending rules. Such an attempt doesn’t work very well; a person of inner virtue and strength and stability will not worry so much about minor things, but will trust himself to do the right thing in normal circumstances”
Brilliant
I always enjoy your blog, but in this case I think you’re off regarding “the Bible Belt”, ie, the South. The South is the only part of the country with any sanity left. Hardly “rigid”. By the way, why do you think that the most Catholic parts of the country are the most morally bankrupt? Look at Massachusetts, NY, CT. What’s the deal?