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. :-)

Governor Jindal Called Me A "Left-Wing Ideologue"

Well... Not to my face.

But, he called those who think business people should not be able to discriminate against gay people in providing services for same-sex weddings "left-wing ideologues."

So, I guess I must be included.

Which is really funny to me.

Because in my U.S. Government class in high school we had to take this little test which measured how liberal or conservative we were. The results? This kinda hot Mormon boy and I got a tie score as the most conservative people in the school. He was interested in me for about five minutes. Until he found out how Catholic I was. The teacher said, "Marla, you should be on your knees before Ronald Reagan." (Mind you. This was no insult. That particular teacher was a staunch Republican.)

And -- yes -- I voted for Reagan. And Bush. And Bush. And McCain. And Romney. (Although, that one was rather painful.)

I also homeschooled my kids and paid their tuition at pretty much the most conservative Catholic colleges IN THE WORLD. Not in the state, mind you. Or even the country. But, THE WORLD.

So, to have myself lumped in with the "left-wing ideologues" was quite hilarious. And also quite illustrative of today's conservative thinking.

Which is why, I suppose, I can't really call myself a conservative, anymore. I jumped off that train as it derailed and I found my feet firmly planted in the land of Obamacare.

And after much research and thinking and soul-searching, I have also found my feet firmly planted in the land of marriage equality. If a marriage is legal, then it should stand on equal legal ground with all other legal marriages, and should be respected, as such.

And what does this mean to me, as far as religious freedom goes?

It means that the Catholic Church (and any other religious organization) should never, ever be forced to preside at weddings which do not conform to their theology. Even the Human Rights Campaign asserts that they should never have to do this, as it would be a very clear violation of the Constitution.

But, as far as taking photographs and serving food and baking cakes and preparing pizza? To assert that to do this is a violation of your religious freedom is tenuous, at best. And more like ridiculous. I'm not going to go into a big explanation of this. Many others have explained it, and explained it very well.

I am, though, going to tell you where all this pizza/cake/flowers/photograph hoo-ha came from.

As I have existed, for many years, in the land of the right -- both religious and political -- I was able to observe much of the development of the anti-same-sex-marriage movement. And I came to realize that it was primarily based on fear. The movement had to make people afraid of what would happen to them if same-sex marriage became a reality. I heard priests and political people speak very persuasively about how we Christians would be persecuted if same-sex marriage were legalized. It truly was frightening. I became frightened. And I'm sorry for that. It was only after I started doing research and speaking to people on my own that I became un-frightened. Now -- mind you -- there were (and are) people who don't support same-sex marriage and who speak about their views in a way that is not fear-inducing. It is more philosphical and theological. But, there was (and is) A LOT of hysterical talk in the anti-same-sex-marriage movement.

So, when same-sex marriage was legalized in many places and nothing frightening occurred and most people were starting to make peace with their same-sex-married-couple neighbors, the anti-same-sex-marriage movement had to come up with a way to show the populace that they were, IN FACT, being religiously persecuted and should, IN FACT, be very afraid. Enter the Same-Sex-Pizza-Wars (insert "flowers" or "photography" or "cake" for "pizza," as you so desire).

Simply put: YOU ARE BEING PLAYED, nice conservative people.

(And here I'm going to put in a plug for the nice conservative people. Most of them don't hate anybody. Some of them do. This is true. And that hate is absolutely unacceptable. But, most of them don't. They are being played, which calls for a little patience and understanding on your part, nice progressive people.)

Because, you know what? Providing wedding services is not the same thing as participating in a marriage ceremony. And refusing to provide the services of your business because a marriage does not conform to your theology could rightfully be seen as constituting discrimination. I, personally, believe it does.

There are many types of marriages that the Catholic Church does not deem as "Sacramental" in its theology. Same-sex marriage is one of those types, but there are many others. I generally don't see the Catholic Church, or any other Christian churches, making a lot of noise about their members catering these other non-Sacramental weddings. So, frankly, it looks like we are picking on the LGBTQ people in a rather cruel way.

I look at it this way. I understand what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage. And I respect it. But, I am also quite sure that we don't know everything there is to know about human sexuality. And if somebody is gay or lesbian, forming a relationship with a person of the same sex is the natural thing to do. And these relationships are whole relationships. They are not just all about the sex act. They truly are about love and commitment. They are emotionally and spiritually supportive. They are TOTAL relationships.

Yes, there are unhealthy same-sex relationships. There are also unhealthy heterosexual relationships -- lots of them. But, same-sex relationships can also be very healthy and satisfying for the people involved. And I feel uncomfortable casting a negative judgment on these relationships. I think to myself, "I am very straight. What if I was told I either had to marry another woman or be alone for the rest of my life?" That kind of sums it up, for me.

So, this Catholic lady, who sent her kids to the three most conservative Catholic colleges IN THE WORLD, would -- if I knew how -- be very happy to arrange the flowers or bake the cake or take the pictures or prepare the pizza for your same-sex wedding. And I would wish you much happiness as I did so.

Pax.

The Church Usually Figures It Out

Figures what out?

How to cope with curve balls.

The Church has had to cope with many curve balls -- like Galileo, for example.  And Protestantism and Democracy and evolution and public schools and the Hippies and inter-faith marriages and many other things.

And -- after stepping all over herself for a while and leaving some messes in her wake -- she learns to act graciously.  Usually, anyway.

Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to excuse her messes.  In fact, one of my favorite things that Pope John Paul II did was make a grand apology for all her screw-ups through the ages.

Sometimes, when I think of the Church, I see in my mind an aircraft carrier trying to navigate a narrow, swiftly moving river.  And this does not always go well.

As I was growing up, my father used to tell stories of the "old days" in the Church (a.k.a. when he was growing up).  He attended Catholic schools through high school, and was taught by many old-time Irish nuns and priests.  He said that the nuns instructed them to make the Sign Of The Cross when passing a Protestant church, because "the devil was in there."  It was also quite frowned upon to attend a Protestant wedding, and it was pretty much forbidden to attend the wedding of a Catholic marrying outside of the Church (and God help you if you were actually a member of the wedding party).  You were also never, EVER allowed to attend a Protestant church service, for any reason.  And divorced Catholics had to wait for years and years for their annulments to become finalized.  This happened to one of my aunts.  She had been married at 16 or 17.  That marriage did not last.  She then met my uncle, but they dated for over five years because of the length of time it took for her annulment to go through.  For Catholic women who had abortions, things were quite hairy.  Just going to Confession wasn't considered adequate.  There was some long, involved, clerical process one had to go through in order to be fully reconciled with the Church.  This is no longer the case (at least in America.)  All priests have been given the authority to absolve women who confess abortion.  Now, some of you might get mad at this, as you believe women shouldn't have to feel guilty about having abortions.  But, my point is that -- out of mercy and a desire to show Christ-like love -- the Church decided that women shouldn't have to undergo a rather humiliating process in order to be considered formally forgiven for what the Church does consider to be a serious sin.  And my general point is that as new phenomena occur in our culture -- phenomena that the Church considers to be, shall we say, "problematic" -- the words and actions and attitudes which emanate from the hierarchy can tend to be rather harsh and seemingly insensitive.  Then, over time, out of merciful love, the Church kind of "changes its tune," if you will.  Words and attitudes and actions become gentler and more charitable. 

I understand that this is not enough for many people.  There are those who wish the Church would actually change her actual teachings regarding such things as the all-male priesthood and contraception and same-sex marriage.  To be honest, I don't think the Church is EVER going to change her teachings in these areas, because they are based on a theology of the Trinity and a certain philosophy of Natural Law that's not going to change.

I personally don't have an issue with having an all-male priesthood.  I know there are many who do, because they feel that this means that women are left out of key decision-making positions in the Church, that their voices aren't heard or acknowledged.  And I understand this.  There are times when I have felt this way.  One thing that encourages me is that Pope Francis seems to get this, also, and has spoken of developing a more formal Theology of Woman in order to begin to address the legitimate concerns of women who are both inside and outside of the Church.

Concerning the issue of contraception, the Church has also softened her voice over the years.  No, contraception is not "approved of" theologically, but people who practice it -- especially married couples in difficult situations -- aren't treated harshly (in my experience, at least).  There are no "witch hunts," no midnight condom raids,  no threat of excommunication if you are on The Pill.  Of course, the Church does exhort and teach about this issue.  There are some good reasons -- in my opinion, anyway -- why the Church views contraception negatively.  I would encourage you, if you haven't already, to read "Humanae Vitae."  I would ask you to consider what this document says, if you feel there is any wisdom contained therein.  This is what we call, in Catholic circles, "informing your conscience."  You are still free, in the end, to make up your own mind. 

Same-sex marriage is probably the most recent curve-ball thrown the Church's way.  And her reaction to this cultural phenomenon has caused much hurt amongst LGBT people.  For example, having your marriage and family described as a "danger" to our society would probably be painful.  I think, though, that as the reality of having same-sex couples and their children in our communities sinks in, the Church will recognize the need to behave graciously toward them, to not inflict suffering on them by using rather incendiary language to describe their relationships and family lives, and to extend Christ's love to them.  There is a saint (I forget which one) who said something to the effect that, when all is said and done, it is "important to get along with one's neighbor."  And the Church, usually and eventually, comes around to that.