Category: Old Dish

A gay Catholic grad student at Notre Dame writes the following:

I apologize if my own anger and pain about the document detract from the larger points I attempt to make, but this instruction feels like a truly personal attack.

Always bear in mind that when God surveyed his creation he deemed it good. Not perfect, good. As creatures we must recognize the value of other despite any deficiencies. Let us not lose sight of the dire consequences this document will likely have. None of its effects have only theoretical ramifications. It harms the flesh and bones of Christ’s Mystical Body, gay and straight, lay and ordained.

This document fundamentally renders the Catholic Church less catholic, less compassionate, and less Christian. Furthermore, it will exacerbate the priest shortage at a time when so many Catholics lack the nourishment provided by a communal celebration of the Eucharist. It alienates not only gay and lesbian Catholics but their loved ones as well – who have perhaps struggled but succeeded in accepting their homosexual loved one as a good person in whom the Spirit is active.
As a gay Catholic I find it difficult to conceive a place for myself that maintains any semblance of intellectual, spiritual or emotional integrity; I see a dismissal of my ability to achieve a humane communion with my fellow persons and with Christ. The Vatican has now further marginalized an already marginalized group by pandering to people’s worst fears and stereotypes. This document amounts to a predation upon those men with whom I share a unique emotional commiseration and who thus speak more effectively to my particular spiritual struggle. It attempts to amputate part of the Mystical Body.
We cannot pass this position off as a ‘hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner’ exhortation otherwise a commitment to celibacy would suffice. The equation of predilection to actual act has dangerous implications for all Catholics. The inclination to sin, common to all humans and part of our imperfection, should never be squared with sin itself lest we abandon the hope for living in a Christ-like way by overcoming the inclination to sin to instead act with love and justice.

What those who condemn homosexuality fail to realize is that it is not only or even primarily about sex, just as heterosexual attraction is not primarily about the act. A non-normative attraction does not constitute an ‘affective immaturity’ that precludes normal relational interactions. In fact, in my experience and the experience of every other gay person I know, the stifling of our sexuality through denial, self-loathing, an attempt to enter straight relationships, or a spiritually unsatisfying celibacy causes much more dysfunction in relationships of all types than does admitted homosexuality. The ‘trial’ of homosexuality comes from the fear of reprobation or the actual rejection of others, to which the Church now contributes under the pretext of stabilizing the priesthood. Once we come to terms with our own sexuality and remember that we are still children of God, we can begin to see ourselves as God does: good, imperfect but unquestionably good.

I think that is what is so immensely painful about this latest attack on some of God’s children. It is an attempt to conflate a sin with an identity. That is a profound attack on the Body of Christ. From the Vatican itself.

“President Bush has articulated his policy vision more consistently and more eloquently than any President since Lincoln,” – John Hinderaker, Powerline.

An emailer makes a challenging point:

When I read the Derbyshire bit on your blog today, I was thinking about his negative view on homosexuality: if he thinks that who one desires is not a matter of choice (as he implies by saying it is an ‘unfair’ truth that men really only want 15-20 year olds), then how can he possibly justify marginalization of gay relationships?

I did a Google search to see if he thought homosexuality was inborn, and it turns out he does. That does not, however, mean that gays shouldn’t be marginalized, according to him. Homosexuality is a ‘social negative,’ he says. In fact, it would be better for everyone, he thinks, if they marginalized themselves. He says,

“Tolerance is not approval; and while I do not agree with the pope that homosexuals are called to chastity, I do think that they are called to restraint, discretion, reticence, and a decent respect for the opinions of the majority. I certainly do not think that they ought to be allowed to transform long-established institutions like marriage on grounds of ‘fairness.’ Nor do I think they should be allowed to advertise their preference to high-school students, as they do in some parts of this country. Nor should they be strutting about boasting of ‘pride.’ (How can you feel pride in something you believe you can’t help?)”

Seems to me that freely and publicly admitting pedophilic tendencies (and lusting after 15-year-olds still counts – at least, adults sleeping with 15-year-olds is illegal, and most people are agreed that it’s illegal for good reason) is advertising a preference of a far greater social negative. I’m sure many, or some, high school students read NRO. And if he’s not strutting about boasting, he’s certainly saying it with a ‘wink-wink, come on guys, you know I’m the only one who’s brave enough to say what we’re all thinking’ kind of bravado. If he thinks gays should exhibit restraint, discretion, etc., my goodness, by his own reasoning, why shouldn’t he?

Good question, I’d say.

The genius of the South Park writers is that their glorious parodies are so often too close to reality. Gay cowboys with chocolate pudding? Coming up … And then there was that amazing scene from last year’s best movie-comedy, “Team America.” It was a parody of the dreadful musical, “Rent,” called “Lease!” One of the show-stoppers was a big musical number called, “Everyone Has Aids!” My favorite lyric: “C’mon, everybody, we got quiltin’ to do!” And then in this morning’s NYT, we got a full-page pull-out with the slogan: “WE ALL HAVE AIDS” (Funny, even I don’t have AIDS. I was unaware that Will Smith, Tom Hanks and Bishop Tutu did, but I hope they’re doing well on their meds). Glamor Vanity Fair-style pics of the usual AIDS groupies and hangers-on. But this time: with no shoes on! You can get your “WE ALL HAVE AIDS” t-shirts here. Available at Barney’s. Where else?

A reader clues me in:

Methinks Derb comes to his conclusion about female boobies by drawing on his personal biases only. Some straight men – me for instance – really have a thing for M.I.L.F.’s. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it is an acronym for “Mom I’d Like to Fuck,” popularized in the 1999 movie “American Pie.” In my opinion, a proper MILF need not be a mother per se, but no one under 36 need apply. Yes, a true MILF will still retain some youthful qualities – enough so that the Maxim “reading” demographic will still be able to exclaim “I’d hit it.” At the same time, there is a maturity of mind and body that is rare in 20-somethings and entirely lacking in the teeny-bopper crowd. Typically, a woman stops being a MILF after she reaches menopause, at which point she may very well graduate to GILF status in the eyes of some men. For an example of a classic MILF, I refer you to Patricia Clarkson, who recently appeared in Good Night, and Good Luck.

I’m grateful for the enlightenment. Not all straight men lust after barely legal teens, as Derb does. Speaking of which, this is aparently the only picture taken on Derb’s wedding day. (Hat tip: Yglesias.)

The cover-letter accompanying the Vatican’s ban on all gay seminarians has some added detail. The policy is to be stringently enforced; and celibate gay priests are also to be barred from any teaching role in seminaries. Again, what matters is not how good a teacher or theologican they are; not whether they abide by their vows to celibacy; what matters is that they are gay. That is now itself a bar. Tell me how this isn’t unvarnished discrimination. To allow gay priests to remain in their orders, and then to treat them as second class priests? Am I the only person gob-smacked by this?

“Even with the strenuous body-hardening exercise routines now compulsory for movie stars, at age 36 the forces of nature have won out over the view-worthiness of the unsupported female bust. It is, in fact, a sad truth about human life that beyond our salad days, very few of us are interesting to look at in the buff. Added to that sadness is the very unfair truth that a woman’s salad days are shorter than a man’s – really, in this precise context, only from about 15 to 20.” – John Derbyshire on why under-age and teenage female boobs are the only ones he finds worth looking at.

South Africa’s post-apartheid Constitution explicitly granted gays and lesbians full rights as citizens. There is no valid citizenship without the right to marry the person you love; and so the global movement toward equality in marriage advances again. Who would have guessed twenty years ago that the land of apartheid would now be ahead of the United States in its support for civil rights and equal protection of laws?

The president’s speech yesterday was, to my mind, a massive improvement on the phony pep-rallies he has deployed in the past. Someone in the White House has finally realized that a war needs to be explained to the people paying for it, that details are important, strategy can be laid out in specifics, that errors can be conceded as a matter of strength, not weakness. Of course, it would have been better if the president had been giving similar and more candid speeches like this on a monthly basis for the last three years. But better late than never. It’s also encouraging for the troops, who prefer being told the truth rather than fed a bunch of politicized hooey. Still, our position is on the edge of a knife. I’m by no means confident that our war goals can be achieved before American patience runs out. But I do feel our current strategy is about as good as we can get; I do have confdence in General Casey (if not Rumsfeld); in Rice (if not Cheney); and in Khalilzad. The Iraqi people – the long-suffering, triply betrayed Iraqi people – deserve our resilience in this. We should put our feelings about this president to one side and consider the national interest, and our remaining moral responsibility for the almighty but still-promising mess we have created.

So we’re spinning the Iraqi press by planting propaganda in its pages? BFD. The only problem with this scheme, it seems to me, is not that somehow it’s unethical to use propaganda in wartime, especially in occupied areas where local support is crucial. This is war, as some people still refuse to understand. The problem is that media is now global, the free citizens of Iraq can access information from almost anywhere on earth, and these stories will leak and backfire. We’re adjusting to war in a new media universe. We haven’t adjusted swiftly enough.