I'm not sure how I got into this, but I guess I'm just a sucker for debate, although I must admit that I'm still waiting to see something worthy of debating, but I've ended up in some discussions with conservative Catholics on this guy Chris Burgwald's blog, Veritas, which if nothing else is a very pretty blog to look at (I really like the stained glass pattern!), but also Chris seems to be a nice, level-headed guy, so we'll see what happens. It's given me plenty to write about (as though I really needed any more!).

I started out commenting over there because Chris was lamenting the end of a discussion with a liberal pro-gay Catholic, and I felt like I understood where she was coming from and why she felt she couldn't continue the discussion any longer, and then later I opined that the two of them couldn't really communicate, because they have two fundamentally different views of the fundamental nature of their religion (law vs. love), to which Chris replied that he wasn't making arguments based on religion, only on reason. I find this pretty hard to believe! So I said:

"Reason" cannot take one to an anti-gay stance; all evidence indicates that homosexual behavior and same-sex relationships are "natural" (biologically), "normal" and "well-adjusted" (psychologically), and, sociologically speaking, perfectly compatible with harmonious social life (in other words, millions of gay and lesbian individuals and couples are living peacefully and productively on this planet, the same as heterosexual ones); there is nothing "reasonable" about affording rights to opposite-sex couples and denying them to same-sex ones. It's exactly what the MA supreme court said.

So I asked him to either make or point me to where he has already made an anti-gay, anti-same-sex-marriage argument "based on reason with no appeal to religious doctrine, God's plan, traditional values, divine law, Leviticus, Adam and Eve, etc., etc." I continued: "I'm excited at the possibility--it would certainly be a first in my experience!!"

So, we'll see...

|  3:19:15 AM  |  This is Post #135  |  Permanent URL:   |    |

Being against the Pope and the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchical institution and its assorted very bad policies and doctrines does not mean one fails to have respect for people who are Catholics. There are many good ideas in Catholicism, such as defending the poor and advocating for peace. And there are some very cool Catholics out there, like, for instance, many Catholic nuns. Two examples: The Sisters of St. Joseph of La Grange: Ministry of the Arts (they make the most incredibly gorgeous artwork—buy some!), and the National Association of American Nuns (a 33-year-old peace and justice group representing about 1,800 women religious), which doesn't seem to have a website, but one can find some of its statements around on the web:
On women in the priesthood
On sexual abuse of women in the Church
Some excerpts from a statement of outrage after two Catholic leaders were officially silenced and banned from working with gays and lesbians (although they never contradicted the Church's official teachings on "homogenital acts", they were just a little too loving and compassionate towards gays and lesbians as human beings, I guess *rollseyes*):

• Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you shut the door against the loving relationships of lesbian and gay people and shelter the homosexual priests and bishops in your closets.
• Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you devour the human rights of the Church's ministers by using secret and authoritarian procedures of examination.
• Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you refuse to listen to the voices of dissent to your repressive measures.
• Woe to you, men of the Vatican curia, hypocrites! Because you abuse your authority through a resurgence of the inquisition by probing into the conscience of another.

Another couple of cool Catholic reform movements: The Quixote Center and Call to Action.

Anyway, the reason this came up is that after somehow (not quite sure how) finding my way to a couple of Catholic blogs I encountered some commentaries on Margaret Cho who, in addition to her comedy segment on Republicans for the Moveon.org affaire, had previously done a piece against the Vatican's stance on sex and birth control, and so I had to respond to their calling her an anti-Catholic bigot:

1. Opposing the policies and positions of the Vatican does not make one "anti-Catholic". Many American Catholics, some very active and devout, disagree, sometimes very strongly, with the Vatican on quite a number of issues. This hardly makes them "anti-Catholic".

2. Neither does opposing the policies and positions of the Vatican mean that one holds a negative opinion of all persons who identify as Catholic. The above argument applies here, obviously. As does the fact that I vehemently oppose many policies and positions of the Vatican, yet nevertheless, my best friend is a practicing Catholic, one who agrees with the Pope on more issues than many American Catholics, and that doesn't stop me from loving her dearly. She has beliefs with which I disagree; I have beliefs with which she disagrees; on some levels we each think the other is misguided; yet we manage to be very good friends.

3. Even strongly opposing the Pope himself and the very nature of the Catholic hierarchical system, even despising the Pope and thinking him a foolish, pompous, dangerous and deluded individual, even telling him to F off (I wholeheartedly agree with everything Cho said and think she is a fabulous comedian), does not make one "anti-Catholic", if that is taken to mean that one hates or would discriminate against or seek to harm any or all persons who happen, by circumstance or deliberate choice, to be Catholic.

(No more so, I might add, than opposing the Bush administration makes one "anti-American" or opposing the Israeli government/army makes one an "anti-Semite".)

If y'all cannot see that, I think there's something lacking in your logical process. The Pope may think that he and his views define Catholicism, but many Catholics, in the US and around the world, disagree, and I wish them much luck in transforming the Catholic church into a more humane, fair, equal, rational, accountable institution.

I also made another comment on Margaret Cho, with regard to the fact that some conservatives (religious and otherwise) don't seem to be able to make a mental differentiation between a comedy act and a serious statement of personal belief...

Does it occur to any of you that Margaret Cho does not necessarily go around speaking like that in her everyday life? The language that you find so "offensive" is part of her comedy routine. She is in fact a perfectly intelligent woman who is perfectly capable of speaking and carry on conversations without using "profanity".

As with various sorts of performing artists, comedians take on personas, adopt styles of being and speaking, often ones that are extreme in some way, that are used in their comedy routines. And while a comedian's stage persona likely incorporates some parts of who they are as a person, it is nevertheless a limited way of being, one that is used while performing, and it can in no way be conflated with their whole personality or character. Reading a transcript of one or two of Margaret Cho's comedy routines does not put you a position to judge who she is as a human being.

Now I realize that some of you here on this Catholic blog may believe that using "profanity" at any time, for any reason, even in a comedy routine, is wrong, and thus constitutes a negative mark on a person's character, and (though I personally think it's silly, meaningless moralism), I respect your right to believe that way, but you still ought to be able to make some sort of distinction between the way a person is while performing on a stage as part of their professional work and the overall character of that person.

Speaking of Margaret's intelligence and her character, here are a few sentences from her comments on SF's same-sex marriages on her blog:
"I am of the opinion that this only enforces and grounds the idea of family values. By allowing and legitimizing different types of families, we make them relevant, attainable and honorable, therefore strengthening the moral fabric of the nation and making the ideal American family available to all who wish to be a part of one. We will never have a shortage of parents, like we do now. We will have a surplus of love and caring, which we do not have now."

[IOW: KISS MY ASS YOU "FAMILY VALUES" HYPOCRITE FOOLS! FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILIES! (MY words, not Margaret's!)]

|  12:33:40 AM  |  This is Post #134  |  Permanent URL:   |    |