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. :-)

Dear Cardinal Dolan...

I wish you would speak a bit differently about "marriage equality."

For example, I wish you wouldn't say that the Church has been "outmarketed" on the issue.

Since when did the Church become about "marketing"?

The Church is supposed to be about teaching; its message an invitation.  That's what I was always led to believe, anyway.

To be fair, you have said many things about the issue of marriage equality.  This is just one of them, and I don't want to blow it out of proportion.  But, I am becoming more and more concerned about how the Church is handling this issue.  So, when I saw this word -- "outmarketed" -- I just felt like responding.  I don't mean any disrespect.

First, here is a little story.  My daughters, who are both young adults -- who have both been educated at institutions of higher education which have the Mandatum -- teach high school students who are preparing for Confirmation at our parish.  They have told me that the majority of their students -- who attend both public and Catholic high schools -- have come into their class believing that the Church hates gay people.  Now, these are students who have been raised Catholic, who have (supposedly) attended Mass and CCD classes and/or Catholic schools all during their childhood.  And they think the Catholic Church hates gay people.  This should not be blamed on "Hollywood".  This one is on the Church.  These kids have been sitting in your pews and in your classrooms for years -- and they think the Catholic Church hates gay people.  Of course, my daughters are quick to straighten them out. 

And this is why I believe that the Church has put the cart before the horse in its teaching.  People -- including Catholic people -- don't understand why the Church teaches what she does.  And they don't understand that the Church also teaches the concept of free will.  Nobody is to be forced to accept her ideas.

What do I mean by "putting the cart before the horse"?  What do I think should be different in the Church's approach?

Basically, I think it should be emphasized -- first and foremost -- that God loves ALL people.  Unconditionally.  It should also be emphasized that the Church puts forth her ideas respectfully -- respectfully inviting people to consider them.  There should be no "marketing" campaign.

Secondly, the Church needs to teach her theology of sexuality from the roots up.  Right now, she's got everybody's attention on individual leaves.  People aren't seeing the tree as a whole.  People do not understand that the Church's theology of sexuality springs from her understanding of the Trinity and how this understanding can be reflected in our human relationships.  The Church believes in the Father and the Son, who have an eternal relationship of love.  The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from this relationship.  The Church teaches that marriage should mirror this Trinitarian relationship.  The permanent love of the husband and wife is what brings forth (at least potentially) the fruit of children.  It should be explained to people -- starting with the ones in the pews and religious education classes and Catholic schools -- that these basic ideas are the roots from which all of the Church's ideas about sexuality spring.  These are the roots from which the Church derives her teachings on divorce, contraception, masturbation, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polygamy, and gay marriage.

Thirdly, the Church hierarchy needs to remember that people have free will.  This is part of human dignity.  Put forth your teachings, but do so respectfully and charitably.  And then remember that people are free to choose whether or not to agree.  And then -- MOST IMPORTANTLY -- treat with love and compassion those who disagree.  Don't make them your opponents in a "marketing campaign" or in a "culture war".  The people who disagree with the Church teaching on the issue of marriage equality are still our brothers and sisters, made in the image and likeness of God.  They are not our enemies.  In fact, in many ways, they probably do feel hated by the Catholic Church.

Why?

Because we seem to be forgetting that these people do love each other.  They make commitments to take care of each other.  They have children.  They are families.  And you are making them feel as though their families are under attack.  They are legally married, yet they fear you will take that away.  (Because you would, if you could.)  They have children, but both parents in a same-sex marriage aren't allowed to be the adoptive parents of a child that they are raising together.  So, when you accuse the LGBT people of being "aggressive" in their marriage equality campaign, they probably are.  And, perhaps, some of it may be unfair.  But, some of it isn't.  Because they are PROTECTING THEIR FAMILIES.  I would protect my family.  Now you may say, "But, you have a legitimate heterosexual marriage and family."  And, yes, I do have a marriage of which the Church approves.  But, if I was a non-Catholic lesbian, legally married to a woman in California, and we had children, I would pretty much feel under attack by the traditional marriage folks.  I would want to be left alone, with my wife, to raise our babies.  I would not want to constantly have to worry that somebody from "on high" was going to declare my marriage null and void.  So, I might get a little "aggressive." 

So, please, Cardinal Dolan and all you Catholic leaders, remember that you are dealing with human beings who love each other and are raising families.  Think about how you sound to them.  Think about how you make them feel.  You are not in the "marketing" business.  You are in the business of bringing the love of Jesus Christ to people.  And -- yes -- that involves teaching the Church's philosophy of sexuality.  But, please do it a little more thoughtfully and charitably and wisely.  And remember that not everybody is obliged to agree with you.  Maybe we need to make room for that.  Maybe we need to figure out how to live our faith while -- at the same time -- allowing others to make their own life choices, according to their own philosophies.  Maybe we don't need to do all this fighting.

I will just end with a few stories.

One of my daughters, in a job she held for a while, worked with a gay couple -- two men, who had been together for many, many years.  One of them was ill (not with AIDS).  She told me how much fun they were, how nice they were to her (even knowing she was a traditional Catholic), how they had such wonderful senses of humor, how the well one took such good care of the sick one.  She was impressed with how they cared for and loved one another.  She was impressed with their commitment.

This daughter also had a male boss who was married to a man.  He knew she was a traditional Catholic.  They got along famously.  He was a wonderful boss, and he always had her back.  She, for her part, respected his relationship as he viewed it.  Some of her friends got on her case for referring to her boss's husband as "his spouse".  "We're not for gay marriage, so you shouldn't be referring to these people as 'spouses'," was the basic message of my daughter's friends.  "Well," she told them, "this is his relationship.  And I am going to respect that."  I was (and am) very proud of my daughter.  She understands her faith, she is living it, she is sharing it.  But, she is not pushing it on people.  She is respecting people's right to make up their own minds about things.  And she realizes that these gay
married couples are good people, with whom we can have positive relationships.

I know couple of other gay couples.  One lives down the street.  They are the best neighbors you could possibly have.  And they are always nice about my dog peeing on their lawn -- a rare thing in suburbia.  Another one of these couples we know socially, through mutual friends.  They are two men who have been together for a very long time.  They are well-educated, smart, hard-working, funny, and kind.  I spoke to one of them for a long time after the recent DOMA ruling.  I hadn't known all that much about the issue.  But, after talking to him, I came to see why they had been feeling discriminated against.  It was sort of an eye-opening conversation.

To conclude, I know you are doing your best, Cardinal Dolan.  I know you are under a lot of pressure.  I don't mean to be disrespectful.  I get concerned, though, when I see how the Church speaks about gay marriage.  I think it can be done better.  After all, Jesus did say that His Kingdom is not of this world.  So, perhaps, when we say "Thy Kingdom Come," it is not about getting Washington D.C. to conform to all of the Church's ideas.  And I -- and many people I know -- are tired of all the fighting.

Pax.









 

Men At Weddings

I love weddings.  Don't you? 

And I love to see young men at weddings -- the groom, his best man, the ushers, and all the young guys who comprise the family and friends of the young couple.  At the ceremony, they are all so tidy and well-groomed and splendidly dressed.  And respectful.  They politely escort the ladies to their seats, stand up straight, fold their hands, wear earnest expressions while the minister dispenses wise marital advice, cry a few tears during the vows.  Such gentlemen all these young men are.  It is so nice to watch.  Gives me hope for the future. 

But, then comes the reception.  And the alcohol.  Don't even get me started on the after-party.

Please don't misunderstand me.  I love parties.  I love beer and wine and old fashioneds and Manhattans.  I am no tea-totaller.  I serve alcohol to my kids and their friends.  (No worries.  Everyone is 21 and over.)  I am no enemy of revelry and a bit of tequila-induced cheer.

But, I also grew up amongst more than my fair share of alcoholics.  My parents were moderate drinkers, but a few of their friends and relatives were not.  And it was pretty awful to grow up with.  I often didn't really understand why I had to be around these people.  I loved a lot of them, but it truly was not pleasant when they drank excessively on a regular basis.  And -- I admit -- this experience left its mark on my soul.  I hate it when people get drunk.

And that is frequently what I see at wedding receptions.  A lot of drunk young men.  The respectful, well-groomed young men from the ceremony kind of morph into something that's rather the opposite during the reception.  Some of them even seem to think that intoxication is the main goal of the whole occasion.  That's the impression they give, anyway, when you hear them talk and watch how they behave.

I'm probably sounding here a lot like that abolition lady with the hatchet.  That's not my intention.  But, you know, a wedding -- though joyful and happy and festive -- is also an occasion that should be at least somewhat dignified.  ALL THE WAY THROUGH.  Not just at the church. 

I think this is especially true for people who consider a wedding and a marriage to be of a religious nature, or Sacramental.  There is a lot of talk these days about marriage rights -- who should have them and who should not.  And there are a lot of religious people who tout the "one man-one woman" idea, and heavily criticize those of other viewpoints.  A lot of religious folk say that same-sex marriage endangers the institution, that it endangers family life.  Many religious individuals -- especially Catholics -- also frown upon contraception.  Many of them believe that you should be open to a baby from the minute you get married.  They say that they believe in strong and life-long marriages that nurture the many children they hope to have, or hope other couples will have.  I have heard young religious guys cheer each other on when they find out that their pals have baby #2 or #3 on the way.  You would think they were attending a sporting event.  (And it's kind of cute, actually.) But, if you are a religious guy and you diss gay marriage and/or brag that your second baby in two years is on the way and/or discuss your admiration of Judge Scalia -- all at your friends' wedding reception -- at least be sober.  Otherwise, you look really hypocritical.  And kind of ridiculous.  If I were an LGBT person, I would not be impressed.  I'd think, "And these dudes believe they are 'protecting' marriage and ensuring the 'safety' of family life? Ha!"

Of course, I know many people who have gotten drunk -- or whose pals have gotten drunk -- at their weddings and have gone on to have very successful marriages.  And I have attended many weddings where very few guys drank to excess.  And some people get married without judging the marriages of others.  And I probably sound like a douche in this post.  But, when I see people who pride themselves on their devotion to their faith, on the purity of their faith, on their knowledge of their faith getting shit-faced at their chums' weddings, it kind of rubs me the wrong way. 

Now, where did I put my hatchet?

Oh, here it is.  Next to my Jim Beam.

;-)

No Hate

No
H8

You see a lot of talk about "hate" these days.  A lot of people feel hated -- on both and all sides of the political and religious divide.

LGBT people often feel hated by conservatives and by people who belong to more conservative religions and by the Catholic Church.

And conservatives and people who belong to more conservative religions and members of the Catholic Church can also feel hated by LGBT people and their supporters.

And, I am not naive, I know that there is actual hatred out there.

So, I think we all need to consider a couple of things.

First of all, nobody should be hating anybody.  Short of that, nobody should be acting in an uncharitable manner toward anybody -- in thought, word, or deed.  I admit, I think particularly of Catholics here, because I am a Catholic and I hang around with a lot of Catholics.  I have seen Catholics who do not even attempt to understand the position of the LGBT community and their supporters concerning gay marriage and gay rights.  I have heard Catholic lay people and clergy express the opinion that the LGBT community wants to discriminate against us and persecute us.  Some Catholics have even said that the LGBT community would make martyrs of us -- not by killing us, mind you -- but, by forcing us to photograph and cater the food for and even officiate at their wedding ceremonies.  These attitudes, though, are not really expressions of hatred.  They are more expressions of fear.  And what I don't like is when influential Catholics stoke this fear with their words and deeds.  Because when fear is stoked, hatred can develop.  Now, to be fair, somebody told me that there was a case where a wedding photographer was sued -- and lost -- because she didn't want to photograph a same-sex wedding.  I don't know the details of this case.  Although, I have the feeling that there were probably some interpersonal missteps along the way.  Perhaps there were some misunderstandings that could have been resolved between the individuals before the whole situation became a legal conflict.  And this leads me to my next point.
 
Have we forgotten that we can disagree without hating?  Have we forgotten that we can RESPECTFULLY disagree, that we can live and let live?  This goes for ALL people -- religious, secular, conservative, progressive.  It is both fruitless and counter-productive to try to force somebody to accept your view of the world.  It is even more fruitless and counter-productive to accuse somebody or a whole group of people or an institution of hating you because you disagree over an issue -- even an important issue.  The Catholic Church, for example, has a very complex theology regarding marriage.  This theology has developed over 2000+ years.  It is reflective of how the Church views God and creation.  It is not meant to discriminate against anybody.  Are there people who use the Church's teaching to discriminate?  Yes.  And this is not right.  But, it is not the intent of the Church -- at least, I don't think it is -- to have her teachings used to discriminate against people.

On the other side of the coin, it is quite wrong -- and Pope Francis has spoken about this -- to try to force others into your religious views.  Respect for human dignity requires us to actually respect that others do not all accept the Catholic way of looking at things.  The Church also requires us to look at people and situations with compassion.  For example, I am the kind of person who has a hard time being alone in life.  It has always been quite valuable to me to have somebody to share myself with -- spiritually, emotionally, physically.  So, I can easily imagine being a lesbian and wanting to have a life partner.  I can imagine how hard it would be to be denied that, especially in the civil law.  I could understand if certain religions didn't want to perform my wedding ceremony, because of their long-standing theology.  But, I guess I would also feel discriminated against if religions were speaking about me and the person I loved as being harmful to society, especially if we just wanted to live a quiet life in peace.  I would also feel discriminated against if I could be legally married in my state and yet not allowed marriage benefits -- like social security -- on the federal level.  And I suppose having to live with all this lack of consistency in the law -- lack of consistency which would cause me and my spouse actual and concrete hardship -- might make me feel hated.  So, as a Catholic who tries to be compassionate, I put myself in the shoes of my lesbian sisters and have a desire to treat them fairly.

There are some who think that it is the job of Catholics to make the civil law reflect the Divine Law -- at least, the Divine Law as these particular Catholics see it.  The people who think this are not trying to be cruel to others of different ideas.  They just believe that the Catholic version of Divine Law will bring with it what they see as true justice, liberty, and equality.  The problem is, though, that there are too many different people of too many different ideas in our society.  And a lot of those people would feel discriminated against if they perceived that the Catholic Church was dictating how they lived their lives.  People need to be able to make their own choices -- especially about their adult lives -- as freely as possible.  Laws are necessary, yes.  But, a big function of the law -- in my opinion, anyway -- is to keep people from treading on each other unfairly.  We need to be able to co-exist, like that bumper sticker says.  Sometimes, I want to get a Reagan bumper sticker, an Obama bumper sticker, a Catholic bumper sticker, and one of those co-exist bumper stickers, and put ALL of them on my bumper.  Along with my Harley-Davidson sticker.  This is because I am, as my mother always said, a "shit-disturber."

I hope, then, that all of us -- secular and religious, conservative and progressive -- will strive to have more mutual understanding.  I hope that our government will strive to make laws which allow all of us to live lives of peace, according to our consciences.  I hope that people and institutions are not unfairly accused of hatred.  And I hope that where hatred does actually exist, that it is rooted out, in the only way it can actually be rooted out -- by love.

Some Reflections On The Treatment Of Homosexual Persons In Our Society

I was very moved this morning when I saw a friend of mine -- a lovely young lady who is involved in a same-sex relationship -- express her sadness over all the friends she has lost because of her "lifestyle."

This young lady was raised in a very conservative Catholic home.  She went to a very conservative Catholic college.  Don't get me wrong, though.  Her parents love her very much and I believe her relationship with them (and with her siblings) is very positive.  I also know that she still has many friends from college who love her and support her.  But, I am also fairly sure that a lot of the friends she has lost were of the religious conservative variety.

And this is quite unfortunate.

Now, some people who have distanced themselves from her may very likely still be her friends.  They are probably just uncomfortable with the situation and don't know how to behave.  Perhaps, with more maturity and reflection on the matter, they may again show her their friendship.

Some friends she has lost, though, may believe that by showing her friendship in a nonjudgmental way that they are somehow condoning her situation and contributing to her "sinfulness."  Some of them may also be actively angry and disgusted with her.  And these attitudes, in my opinion, are wrong.

What is it that makes a friend?  Why should we be friends with somebody?  A friend is someone of good character.  A person you can trust and count on.  A person who is kind and charitable.  You don't have to agree on everything -- even "important" things.  You don't even have to entirely approve of each others' lives.  And you can accept a person, without accepting every opinion or action of that person -- even if those opinions or actions are "important."

And for those of us who call ourselves "Christian," we need to approach all others with the recognition of our own fallen nature.  Every single person who is my friend is friends with a sinner.  And I count myself the worst of all. 

People know that I am a Catholic.  My young woman friend knows I am a Catholic.  So, she probably knows what my objective beliefs are.  I don't have to rub her nose in them.  I can just be her friend.

And what about her relationship.  I respect it as her relationship.  I believe her when she tells me that she loves her girlfriend.  I enjoy her friendship.  And I pray for all of us, without considering her to be any worse than I.

One of my daughters knows a gay man who has a spouse who is a gay man.  She considers this man to be her good friend.  In many situations, he has certainly acted as a friend to her.  He knows she is a devout Catholic -- and he supports her in her faith.  My daughter, though, has taken considerable heat from some of her "good" Catholic friends for calling this man her friend and for referring to his spouse as "his spouse."  But, he has proven himself -- in his actions -- to be her friend.  And she told me that she is going to respect his relationship by referring to it as he does.  He, for his part, understands her position on the theological definition of sacramental "marriage."  And he does not consider her to be a bigot or a "hater."

I really admire my daughter in her friendship with this man.  I admire that she doesn't back down in her charity out of fear of losing the approval of other "religious" people.  I admire her kindness and the true respect she shows her friend.  To me, the relationship she has with this man should be a blueprint for how society should act in the face of all the controversy over the gay "lifestyle" and gay marriage.

Many people are tossing around the words of Pope Francis concerning gay marriage.  To paraphrase, I believe he referred to it as a trap laid by the devil to trick the children of God.  I would put forth a couple of thoughts about this.  I read an article by a gay activist describing the interactions he had with the Pope when he was still a Cardinal in Argentina.  The activist said that the Cardinal was actually very kind and understanding in their conversations -- even when the gay man talked about his same-sex relationship.  The Pope, when he was a Cardinal, acted toward the homosexual person with charity.  He didn't make him feel judged and condemned.  He didn't refuse to associate with him.  Secondly, there is more than one kind of trap that can be laid by the devil here.  And I believe that the temptation to treat homosexual people -- even when they express the desire to marry -- with contempt and anger and scorn is, perhaps, the worst temptation of all. 

And just in case you thought you were going to escape hearing about Ben McKenzie today, well... ;)

In the November elections, Mr. McKenzie did some rare Tweeting.  Mr. McKenzie is an Obama person.  And one of his Tweets was expressing his happiness that a gay woman had been elected to Congress.   I -- as you are aware -- really like Mr. McKenzie.  I think he is classy and intelligent.  And I think his opinions -- even when different than mine -- are well thought out.  He has also been very kind to my younger daughter when she was not feeling well.  Although, he probably doesn't know that.  So, when he "Tweeted," about this newly-elected Congresswoman, I thought about it.  And I realized that many, many people still have ugly, mean, nasty attitudes about homosexual people.  This is not right.  This really should change.  So, I do understand the happiness of the gay community and people who are pro-gay rights when homosexual people are elected to public office.  And I hope these elections -- and friendships like I and my daughter have with gay people -- will help to create in society more true kindness toward individuals with same-sex attraction.  For even if there are issues of theology and public policy on which there are disagreements, perhaps those disagreements can be discussed in an atmosphere that is truly and actually charitable.

Let Us Strive Not To Let Things...

...Be Our "Undoing."

Today, I read on someone's blog that a certain political ad had been her "undoing."  As this statement was a bit on the dramatic side, it got my attention and caused me to reflect.

Over the years, I have gone through many stages.  I don't have an extremely stable outlook on life.  Perhaps this is a bad thing, but it has also been an interesting ride.  I have gone from being a Reagan conservative to a liberal feminist to a Rush Limbaugh fan;  from a devout Catholic to a person who wanted to join the Anglican Church to a Latin Mass aficionado; from a public school teacher to a homeschool mom.  I have been on both sides of the political and religious spectrum.  Right now, I am pretty much in the middle.  I think that Ellen DeGeneres is the funniest woman on the planet.  I don't think the Catholic Church should be forced to pay for medical insurance that provides services that go against its teachings.  But, I also cheer on Ben McKenzie as he travels the country encouraging people to vote.  Yes, he's encouraging them to vote for Obama, but at least he is a classy guy.  And, even though I think Romney has a lot of good ideas, that whole 47% thing really, really pissed me off.  But, Obama's "guns and religion" comment from the last campaign pissed me off, too.

So, as you see, I am a person who is difficult to pigeon-hole.  Maybe I should be on meds...  Whatever.

Now -- back to the "undoing" thing.

How do we not allow other people and their opinions to be our "undoing?"

By looking for the virtue that most people have.  I am not talking about homicidal, child-molesting sociopaths here.  I am talking about your regular, mostly law-abiding citizens.  And, by and large, these regular, law-abiding citizens have within them goodness.  Seek out that goodness.  Appreciate it.  Enjoy it.  And try to stand, and I mean really stand, in the shoes of "the other" before casting judgment.  Before letting "the other" and his/her opinions be your "undoing."

I mean, even if you don't agree, can't you understand why a lot of people would think that it is only fair to allow gay people to marry?  I understand this.  And -- to risk being "excommunicated" -- there are some advantages I see to having gay marriage be legal.  When I was a young woman, living near San Francisco, the AIDS epidemic was in full swing.  And a lot of this epidemic was brought about because of people having sex that probably didn't involve a lot of commitment.  By allowing gay people to marry, the more conservative among us could figure it this way -- "at least the gay people are now being encouraged by our societal laws to form truly loving and lasting relationships." I also read the 2012 Democratic Platform yesterday.  And I discovered within it a statement that churches would not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs.  That's right.  I bet a lot of us didn't know this.

And on the other side of things, I hope the more liberal among us can see -- even if they don't agree -- that religious people might take it as a violation of their freedom to have to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to their employees.  I mean, last time I checked, condoms were not that expensive and didn't require a prescription.  Yes, I have bought condoms.  They make great water balloons.  And yes, condoms are a bit of an effort to use as compared to some of the birth control methods that do require a prescription.  But at least, dear ladies, with condoms your eggs are not being used as the "chattel of the pharmaceutical companies" (favorite O.C. quote ever). 

With that being said, I really don't believe that Obama and his people are actively trying to persecute us religious folks with the "contraceptive mandate."  I think they are actually sincere in their ideas that this law is necessary for ensuring the well-being of women.  We may have a legitimate debate about how to define and bring about the true well-being of women in our society and in the world.  But, I am willing to concede that the Democrats truly want the best for women, so I am not going to villify their motivations.

So, as this election season -- thank the Good Lord -- draws to a close, I hope we will choose to see the good in others.  I hope that we will not jump to hasty and unfair conclusions about the motives of the "other side."  In my life (and this will probably be another blog post on another day), I have often been treated the most kindly by people with ideas that are very different from my own.  So, when I am tempted to become impatient and irritated at "wrong" ideas, I call this to mind.  And then I don't become "undone" -- by anyone or anything.  Usually, anyway. ;-)

The Catholic Church And The Gay People

My daughters, who are 22 and 24 years old, have begun teaching a group of 11th graders who are preparing for the Sacrament of Confirmation.  Their first class was last night, and something very interesting came up.  It turns out that the majority of the young people being taught by my girls thought that the Catholic Church "hates" gay people.  One of the kids actually thought that the Church categorically condemns gay people to hell.  Now, I presume that most of these teens have attended church and religious education classes at least fairly regularly throughout their lives, otherwise they would not be enrolled in the Confirmation class.  Something, therefore, has gone awry in their instruction, if this is what they believe the Church's attitude toward gay people to be.  And I am wondering if many Catholics -- and people in general -- have this same erroneous belief.

I don't want to brag about my kids, but they do have a proper understanding of Church teaching when it comes to morality; and they recognized that some corrective action needed to take place immediately in this situation.  So, they located a Catechism and read this aloud to the young people:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible....  They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.  These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives...."

Not really hateful, is it?  Not really condemning.  Now, what the Catholic Church does advocate -- for EVERYBODY -- is the idea of chastity.  Chastity is, basically, reserving the sexual faculty for its highest purpose -- the bonding together of husband and wife in marriage and the bringing forth of children to be loved and raised in a stable family situation.   Is this easy for ANYBODY?  Absolutely not.  And the Church recognizes that it is ESPECIALLY difficult for gay people, as they are attracted to persons of the same sex and do not (generally speaking) wish to enter into marriage with somebody of the opposite sex.  So, the Catechism also states the following (emphasis mine):

"By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they (homosexual persons) can and should GRADUALLY and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Apparently, then, the Church does not expect gay people to suddenly and effortlessly stop being gay -- with all that entails.  (Note the word "gradually" in the above statement.)

You may disagree with this teaching.  I understand that.  I do have a lot of sympathy for the position that many people hold, which is that gay people are that way by nature, and should not be criticized -- let alone condemned -- for entering into relationships, and even marriages, with people of the same sex.  But, if we are going to have any kind of discussion in our society regarding these issues, we need to start from the correct premises, one of which is that the Catholic Church does not hate or condemn gay people.

I also am willing to admit, after hearing what those teens in my daughters' class thought, that perhaps the Church has often fallen down miserably in helping people to have a compassionate and loving attitude toward homosexual persons.  With all the heated debates that are raging concerning gay rights -- especially the issue of gay marriage -- the Church has gone to bat very heavily to defend the idea of traditional marriage. And it has pointed out the danger (frightening many people) that Catholics may be forced to "approve of" gay marriage, under threat of civil lawsuits for not performing religious marriage ceremonies for homosexual persons and/or providing services for their wedding receptions.   I do not know how real these supposed "threats" to our religious and civil liberties are.  I am tempted to think they are being exaggerated to "encourage" Catholics to vote the "right" way.  But, I am realizing that in its current defense of traditional marriage, the Church has perhaps forgotten to -  first and foremost -- instruct its members in the proper attitude toward the homosexual person.  An attitude which should be one of "respect, compassion, and sensitivity."  For even if we "win the battle" for traditional marriage, we will have lost the "war" if the Church fails in this regard.  And by the "war", I mean that we as Christians are obligated to show all people -- including gay people -- the love which Christ has for them.  So, if we just make people with same-sex attraction abide by our moral ideas, but we do not show them the love of God through our love for them, I don't think we will be making Jesus very happy.  I think we will have dropped the ball in our calling as Christians.

Maybe the Catholic Church has put the cart before the horse here, at least somewhat.  And maybe it's time to reverse this.  We need to show people -- ALL people -- true charity before attempting to instruct them in anything.  And by "true charity", I mean loving them unconditionally.  Even if they do not wish to adopt our positions -- religiously, morally, or politically.