The Pope And Kim Davis -- A Jesuit "Fast One"???

I have often been accused of being "Jesuitical" in my way of thinking. I say "accused" because those who observed this about me were not being complimentary. Not at all. I used to be rather ashamed of this fact about myself, as I do think it is an accurate observation. As I have entered midlife, though, I have chosen to embrace it.

So, here we go.

I was thinking about the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis. This has some people wringing their hands and others jumping for joy. But -- let us remember -- the Pope is a Jesuit. And I'm wondering if the Pope pulled a Jesuit "fast one."

I am probably going to get a phone call from the Vatican because of this blog post, telling me that I am ALL WRONG. That's okay. It would be sort of cool to get a phone call from the Vatican. And I still think that what I have to say might be worth considering, even if it's not a Slick Jesuit Papal Maneuver.

I was reading the NPR article on the Pope's visit with Kim. (I just love NPR, don't you? They are always so calm and professional. I also love Ezra Klein on Vox. He is witty and hilarious and sort of a sexy nerd. But, I digress.) In this article, I noticed that the Pope used the term "conscientious objection" when discussing his visit with Kim. This is very interesting to me. VERY interesting.

I grew up during the time of the Vietnam War, and there were many conscientious objectors. My parents and their group of friends were rather divided on the validity of being a conscientious objector. Most of them thought that these individuals were, basically, unpatriotic cowards. Some of them, though, admired the values and courage of the "peaceniks."  I once dated a guy -- for a little while -- who had been a conscientious objector. I decided that it was probably a good thing he had been thus, because he basically couldn't seem to stay awake. EVER. The dude would have been a very poor soldier. I would not have wanted to go into battle with this dude. He did have a cool car, though. And he helped me on a limnology project that I basically would have failed without his assistance. After said project, I never saw him again. I suppose traipsing around all those bodies of fresh water convinced him that I was MUCH too energetic for him. (OMG. I am digressing SO much today!)

Let's think, though, about conscientious objectors. In Vietnam, anyway, they were excused from the draft. I guess some of them did non-combat jobs. But, NONE of them performed the duties to which they objected. Why? Because they were excused/dismissed from the job which entailed those duties, meaning they were excused/dismissed from the job of being a soldier.

And this is the point. A conscientious objector was not allowed to become a soldier and then decide -- according to his conscience -- which of his duties he was going to perform and which of his duties he was not going to perform. Either he was in. Or he was out. And if he wanted to conscientiously object, he was OUT.

This is relevant to the case of Kim Davis. If she wants to hold the job that she has been holding, she needs to do that job. ALL of that job. As in the case of the soldier, she does not get to decide which duties she approves of and which she is going to abstain from. That kind of thinking brings chaos and anarchy. We would soon be a country resembling Gotham, if everybody got to do that. (Have you been watching the new season of "Gotham"? It is INCREDIBLE. They totally gave it a face lift from last year's season. And -- yes -- I have digressed again.) So, if the law has changed and Kim conscientiously objects to it, that is her human right. As the Pope stated. But, I bet the Pope is clever enough to realize that a conscientious objector needs to be excused -- or excuse himself/herself -- from the job to which he/she objects. Just as the soldier does not get to define his role, neither does Miss Kim. Perhaps this is the Pope's indirect and understated -- but, very Jesuitically clear -- message. And even if it's not his message, it's mine. ;-)

Now, I do think Miss Davis is a decent lady. She has basically been emotionally hijacked by and made a pawn of religious right-wingers. So, I kind of hope that the county for which she has worked will find her a new position that is both amenable to her conscience and provides for her needs. Do I think it's necessary for the county to do this? No, I don't. But, I think it would be decent. She probably won't need another job, though, because she's probably going to make a lot of money off the right-wingers. You know? With public appearances and podcasts and a YouTube channel and a book. There will probably even be a movie made about her by a certain university with which I am acquainted. Maybe I'm being cynical. I don't know.

Pax. :-)

A Sex Tutor Adventure

As some of you may know, during the first half of the 1980's, I was the Student Assistant for the professor who taught the Human Sexuality class at San Francisco State University.  Some referred to me -- good-naturedly -- as the "sex tutor."

Now, as you can imagine, this class was very popular.  Each semester, it had the largest enrollment of any class on campus -- often between 300 and 400 students.  My job consisted mainly of administrative tasks, such as typing up exams, scoring them, keeping the grade book up-to-date, and helping to calculate final grades.

Once in a while, though, when the professor was out-of-town, I got to run the class.  I delivered a couple of lectures.  I took some heat for one of these lectures from a male student who took offense at my objection to the practice of female genital mutilation -- a practice that, tragically, still occurs in some parts of the world.  I got a little bit afraid that day... 

On a more positive note, each semester the professor would have a panel of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students come in to speak to the class.  They would talk about their experiences of realizing their sexual orientations, of admitting to them (both to themselves and to others), and of coming to accept themselves as they were.  They would also speak about their experiences in society as LGB individuals.  The professor would moderate these discussions, as they involved a lot of questions and answers between the class and the guests.  The idea was to promote understanding between people of good-will, and the discussions tended to be very upbeat.  The LGB students were quite open and good-humored about all the questions asked of them.

One semester, the professor was unable to be there for this particular class, so I had the privilege of moderating it.  It was a good experience for me.  The panel consisted of a gay man, a lesbian woman, and a bisexual woman.  I admired them.  They were obviously opening themselves up for abuse, as who knows what kinds of questions would be fired at them.  We didn't pre-screen the questions.  I just went around with the microphone to anybody who raised their hand.  And they were very kind and friendly to the obviously rather conservative girl who was in charge of the class that day. 

Here is an example of their very tolerant attitude towards those of us who had really never known too many LGB people (at least LGB people who were "out"):

I was about 19 or 20 at the time.  And I thought the gay man on the panel was kind of hot.  Because he was.  So, I asked him, "A lot of women might look at you and think, 'He's really attractive. What a waste!'  How would you respond to that?"  (What a total bone-headed question.  Right???  When I think of how I asked that question, I sort of want to go hide in a cave.)  Anyway, the hot gay man laughed REALLY hard and, with a mischievous gleam in his eye, replied, "Well, I could look at an attractive straight guy and say the same thing."  And then I laughed REALLY hard.  And so did the students.  And I thought  it was really nice of these people to come to this class in order to answer the bone-headed questions of people like me.

So, when I look at the "Culture War" raging all around me, I just think of these nice people who were willing to come and patiently answer questions about their personal lives for a bunch of strangers.

(P.S. -- Some of you may wonder why there were no trans people on the panel.  I really don't know.  You have to remember that this was a long time ago, and all of these things were just beginning to be discussed more openly.  I'm sure that, today, there would be a trans person included in the discussion.  I also hope I am using my terminology accurately.  I apologize if I am not.  Things are changing quickly, and I am having a hard time keeping up.  But, I will strive to learn.)

Pax.

Morality Clauses

I am thinking here, specifically, of those used by certain Catholic institutions.

Basically, you agree to abide by certain standards of conduct, if you are employed by one of those institutions -- standards of conduct which are approved by the Church -- or else you can be terminated from your job.

And, yeah, if you read my blog post from a couple of days ago, I guess this post is sort of related to that one.

Not all Catholic institutions require employees to sign morality clauses.  It seems to me -- and this is based on my own personal observations -- that they are a growing trend among those institutions that consider themselves more "orthodox" or "traditional" or "faithful."

When I first heard of morality clauses, they were presented to me as a way by which a Catholic institution could protect its mission and ensure that it was setting an example of "correct" Church teaching.  These contracts between an employer and employee were said to be a method by which a Catholic institution could avoid scandalizing the faithful.  I guess it is thought that if everybody in the Catholic institution -- like a college, for instance -- is "on the same page" morality-wise, then the students won't become confused about what "being a Catholic" really means.  Likewise, the surrounding community will also be clear as to what "being Catholic" truly entails, by observing the behavior of those at the Catholic institution. 

How did I feel about that?  Well, on the one hand, I could understand it.  There is obviously a lot of confusion in our culture and society about what Church teaching actually is.  So, I thought that if there was an institution dedicated to presenting it acurately -- both in word and example -- that it could be a positive thing.  On the other hand, it struck me as rather elitist.

How do I feel about morality clauses now?  I think they suck, basically.  Why?  Because schools -- and who knows what other kind of entities -- are firing people, not because they are poor employees, but because they do not conform to the "approved" morality.  And, in doing this, legalism is being allowed to trump mercy, compassion, and charity.  Also, in doing this, certain kinds of "sinners" are being singled out in a world where "all sin and fall short."  ALL sin and fall short.

Why is this bad?  Why is it bad to single out and fire certain kinds of sinners?  Well, this is my experience, based on certain social situations I have had to endure.  What happens is that the people who are left in the institutions -- the "pure" Catholics -- start to become rather prideful and self-congratulatory.  Oh, yes, they beat their breasts and call themselves sinners and go to confession and profess to love mercy and compassion.  But, when you hear them start talking to each other?  There is an awful lot of pride going around.  There is an awful lot of "let's pat each other on the backs because we're the 'good' Catholics" kind of attitude.  There are a lot of unkind words concerning "unfaithful" Catholics and the "Hollywood Liberals" who want to "destroy marriage" and the "pro-aborts." Are all conservative Catholics this way?  Of course not.  But, there are enough.  There are enough.  And it makes me ill.

As an example, I was once talking to a Catholic "apologist."  This person said that living on the Gulf Coast would be desirable.  I commented that there are a lot of hurricanes in that area of the country.  This person replied, "Well, at least you wouldn't have to worry about Steve and Steve living next door."  EXCUSE ME?!?!?!  I happen to have a so-called "Steve and Steve" as neighbors, and they are the best neighbors you could possibly have.  I am embarrassed to say that I didn't say anything to this person expressing my discomfort at this statement.  At the time -- because of my personal situation -- I was feeling like a rather bad Catholic who should just shut up and listen to the "respected" Catholics.  But, I have had a lot of time to think about and observe things since that time.

So, to bring this back to the issue of morality clauses:

Morality clauses -- because they keep certain "disapproved of" people out of places of employment -- cause the "approved of" people to have the "privilege" of not having to actually interact with these "marginalized" individuals.  The people living "in sin" become more of a theological/philosophical concept than actual human beings, in all their wondrous complexity.  A situation develops where the religious person may never have the necessity of forming a close, personal relationship with, for example, an LGBT person or a pro-choice person.  And even if there are such people in a religious person's life, there is created vast opportunity to -- on a day-to-day basis, in a Catholic institution -- to regularly criticize those types of people, without them being present or being part of the discussion.  To me, this is dangerous.  It creates an atmosphere of superiority and snobbery and isolationism.  It creates an atmosphere of fear.  And the "holy" people -- even though they profess to being sinners -- almost can't help but take on the attitude that these other types of "sinners" are far worse than they.  That has been my experience, at least.

As you may know, I homeschooled my kids.  And for a long time, our homeschool group had a "park day," where the moms would bring their kids on Friday afternoons for playtime and socialization.  My sister happened to be visiting one time, and accompanied my kids and I to "park day."  She watched the kids and chatted with the moms.  Later, though, she told me that one of the moms said to her that we, as a group, prayed for our homeschool community to remain composed of "pure" Catholics.  "Huh?" I remarked. "I was never aware of that.  That is not my intention."  I asked one of the other moms if she was aware of this praying for our group to remain "pure," and she told me that she had no knowledge of this, either.  That was a relief.  Maybe it was some quirky thing.  I don't know.  But, I have to say that it has been my experience -- based on many years of hanging around with more conservative Catholics -- that this rather elitist attitude does not seem uncommon.  And it seems to me that morality clauses -- and the fruits of those clauses -- only exacerbate these problematic attitudes among Catholics who consider themselves to be the "faithful" ones.

I am quite certain that a "logic" person could poke all kinds of holes in what I have just said here.  Whatever.  Somebody recently said to me, in a rather derogatory tone, "You just want everybody to feel good about themselves."  Whatever.  But, I just think about Jesus and how he acted towards the "sinners" versus how he acted toward the "teachers of the law."  And many of the "sinners" really loved him and wanted to hang out with him all the time.  So, obviously, he was not hitting them over the head with the Dead Sea Scrolls.  On the contrary, he showed them true compassion.  And compassion is a very powerful thing.  Perhaps more powerful than morality clauses in the teaching of the faith and in setting an example for our children and teens and young adults.