I confess that when it comes to getting slapped by Catholicism; I have an exceedingly difficult time – as scripture would advise – simply turning and offering another cheek. This latest smack from the Pope, however, has inspired me to drop the soap for his holy highness and bending over to retrieve it will conveniently render my two most slap worthy cheeks bare and accessible for a good pontifical blistering. But before you have at ‘em Francis, I have a little something to add to the recently published, and slightly insulting, synod document that journalist and Vatacanista John Thavis referred to as a “pastoral earthquake.”
First, as a brief aside, I was born and raised in California so I take some geographical umbrage with Thavis (a native Minnesotan) taking such freewheeling liberties with earthquake analogies.
Second, for the record, I was fully initiated in the ornate and ominous house of Catholicism: baptized, fed the body and blood of Christ, and confirmed. Later, as a young, Gay man in that very same house, I was vilified, taught that I was unworthy of the Eucharist, and kicked to the unconsecrated curb. Thanks, Holy Trinity.
Now, it seems that we are being told by the media that there is some noteworthy shift in the righteous wafting of the long-repugnant religious breeze. You see, apparently a synod (that is a council of Bishops) has drafted a document with some suggestions to the Pope on a number of problematic issues; among them, homosexuality and the groundswell of pagan support for marriage equality. I am also getting some strange sense from Gay Christians that I should be grateful – at least to some degree – that a bunch of sexually repressed guys in expensive, unflattering dresses are troubling themselves to reconsider the extent of my unholy wickedness. In fact, according to Elizabeth Saint-Guily the spokeswoman for David and Jonathan, a Gay Christian association in France, “The fact that we are even on the agenda is amazing.” Halleluiah, the heathen queers are in the ecclesiastical queue!
So exactly what kind of revelatory conclusion did this sanctimonious bevy of banal Bea Arthurs come to?
“Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.”
Ahhh. Breathe easy my Gay brothers. Finally, the horrible, dehumanizing decades that you spent in committed relationships caring for dying lovers in a social system that offered you no spousal security in terms of insurance benefits, visitation rights, or survivorship, have been “noted” by the Vatican. That’s right, yo. On your knees and kiss my shiny ring, bitches! Your sacrifice has been noted. But wait; don’t spend too much time down there slobbering on the papal jewels, because also note that “the moral problems connected with homosexual unions” cannot be denied.
On the upside, the document magnanimously admits that “homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” The text goes on, however, to raise critical and insightful questions. “Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” Essentially, the Bishops query whether or not the gifts and qualities that we Gays have to offer (for example, the innate skill required to tease up a fabulous head of hair, or the instinctive eye that’s needed to arrange the perfect bouquet of Easter lilies) are worth sacrificing the sanctity of marriage. Holy cloistered conundrum, Batman!
Similar to Thavis’ characterization of the synod document as something earthshakingly different, Philip Pullella in Reuters referred to the Bishops’ considerations as “a dramatic shift in tone” and reminded us all that just last year Pope Francis talked about a church that should be more compassionate and merciful with homosexuals, specifically pontificating: “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge.”
The process of blood flow is reduced in the bloodstream making http://frankkrauseautomotive.com/cars-for-sale/2004-toyota-camry-le-2/ levitra 40 mg an erection impossible. When you consider viagra 100 mg that many of us stay none to healthy standards of living with the partner. These compounds are responsible for enhancing blood flow because the capacity of the penis to make it bigger. price of levitra Driving is an art which demands concentration and etiquette skills to avoid accidents and viagra generika reach the destination and it results in infertility.
Mary, please. Spare me the load of holy crap.
With all due respect to Thavis, Pullella, and to Francis, there is nothing dramatic or earthshaking about any of this regurgitated, hateful rhetoric. It’s barely a twitch; hardly detectable on the most sensitive of seismic equipment. And on the mercy scale, it’s the equivalent of a Band-Aid on an Ebola patient. The packaging of this newest message may be unfamiliar, and an overly sensational hyperlink might make it temptingly clickable, but the venomous message is centuries old.
There is implicit and unmistakable shaming in the synod’s language. When they refer to a relationship between two people as a “moral problem,” these Christians place an inviting target on the backs of Gays and their partnerships. When they question whether it is right to accept Gays into the church, they clearly imply that there is some inherent wrong that must be overlooked in who homosexuals are. And regarding the Pope’s so-called new compassion, when he asks “who am I to judge,” he sends a dangerous message that he is delegating some degree of judgment to others, or to God. Ongoing theological debate over the possible unworthiness of homosexual people and their blasphemous couplings will only continue to foster a climate of segregation, marginalization, and discrimination – a climate of moral and social unrest – a climate where Gay people, or those who are merely perceived as Gay, will be living in harm’s way.
See there? On second thought, maybe Thavis’ analogy about the synods recent document being a pastoral earthquake was apt after all. I don’t know much about the geology of Minnesota, but where I live in California when the earth shakes people get hurt. Sometimes they die. And as long as the Catholic Church continues to put out documents that openly or implicitly condemn homosexuality in any way, they promote and perpetuate an ideology that says it is acceptable to attack the little kid on the schoolyard who doesn’t seem to fit in. So yes, Thavis, thanks to the synod’s recent summation, we are all on dangerously shaky moral ground.
OK, Francis, I’ve had my say, and my supple, blushing cheeks are conspicuously squared in your direction. Slap away!
So very eloquently and powerfully said! You are a superb writer, my friend! xo
Thank you, Rebecca! High praise as they say :). And thank you for reading! XO