mrsxbartz... very interesting interpretation. I am not sure I agree with you on everything, but it certainly makes sense in regards to some lines. For example, I didn't find anything particularly oppressive or degrading about the priests and nuns having sex... I thought Bazan was simply implying that it was natural and consensual... I could certainly be wrong, though.
Up until reading the comments here, the first and second verses always seemed somewhat unrelated to me. The first verse, I think undoubtedly, is about priests' vows of chastity, as johnb pointed out. I always figured he was just pointing out that if priests weren't made to refrain from having sex, something very natural and human, ("making harmless sparks") there wouldn't be so many cases of child sexual abuse in the church. I agree with Bazan to an extent, but I also understand the custom of priests' chastity to an extent as well... some people are 'called' to be chaste, and it is an act of discipline and obedience to God. I can respect that: putting aside "earthly pleasures" in order to concentrate on God. And obviously not every priest is a child-molester, although there have certainly been a lot of cases of such a thing in the past.
The second verse I am not so sure about. I always thought it was pretty much about what Hard to Be is about... the idea that if a Christian took a step back ("pondered the weight of an apple / compared to the trouble we're in"), they would realize all of the problems and contradictions ("the millions of small holes") that Bazan believes to be inherent in Christianity. Then, Bazan says, the doubt would begin, and spread throughout their families and into the church. It's very much a similar argument to what the so-called "New Atheists" have been using: that a logical examination of one's faith would make it invalid. (I have some problems with a lot of their writings, but I'm not going to get into them now.)
Now that some posters here have pointed out the bit about the birthright, and the wives and children, I am starting to see some similarities between the two verses, but I have still yet to work it out completely...
mrsxbartz... very interesting interpretation. I am not sure I agree with you on everything, but it certainly makes sense in regards to some lines. For example, I didn't find anything particularly oppressive or degrading about the priests and nuns having sex... I thought Bazan was simply implying that it was natural and consensual... I could certainly be wrong, though.
Up until reading the comments here, the first and second verses always seemed somewhat unrelated to me. The first verse, I think undoubtedly, is about priests' vows of chastity, as johnb pointed out. I always figured he was just pointing out that if priests weren't made to refrain from having sex, something very natural and human, ("making harmless sparks") there wouldn't be so many cases of child sexual abuse in the church. I agree with Bazan to an extent, but I also understand the custom of priests' chastity to an extent as well... some people are 'called' to be chaste, and it is an act of discipline and obedience to God. I can respect that: putting aside "earthly pleasures" in order to concentrate on God. And obviously not every priest is a child-molester, although there have certainly been a lot of cases of such a thing in the past.
The second verse I am not so sure about. I always thought it was pretty much about what Hard to Be is about... the idea that if a Christian took a step back ("pondered the weight of an apple / compared to the trouble we're in"), they would realize all of the problems and contradictions ("the millions of small holes") that Bazan believes to be inherent in Christianity. Then, Bazan says, the doubt would begin, and spread throughout their families and into the church. It's very much a similar argument to what the so-called "New Atheists" have been using: that a logical examination of one's faith would make it invalid. (I have some problems with a lot of their writings, but I'm not going to get into them now.)
Now that some posters here have pointed out the bit about the birthright, and the wives and children, I am starting to see some similarities between the two verses, but I have still yet to work it out completely...