tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post1602526920319280433..comments2024-01-20T00:00:10.459-08:00Comments on Mudblood Catholic: An Appendix to Raw Tact: A Catholic Perspective on HomophobiaGabriel Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-79574546264292035772013-12-14T16:32:57.905-08:002013-12-14T16:32:57.905-08:00Well said. :)Well said. :)Brendonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248268499428066786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-26313036197950316942013-12-06T19:41:31.301-08:002013-12-06T19:41:31.301-08:00I hope you'll consider compiling the "Raw...I hope you'll consider compiling the "Raw Tact" series into a single document and making it available in some way. I would give it to a lot of people.Libbynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-83013280903270715532013-12-03T19:19:58.105-08:002013-12-03T19:19:58.105-08:00Oh, certainly there are plenty of other people gro...Oh, certainly there are plenty of other people groups who are treated unjustly. The reason I write so much about LGBT-identifying people is twofold. One is that I am one, and so I feel I can discuss the matter more intelligently than if I were to discuss a group whose experiences I cannot share -- as a Caucasian, for instance, I'd be very chary of talking overmuch about racism in any sense that would imply that I know what it's like to be the victim of racial discrimination. However, I know something of what it's like to be gay, so I'm a lot less shy about it.<br /><br />The other reason is that, whether our culture's focus on them is proportional or not, LGBT issues are some of the most hotly debated and discussed topics of our time and place. It is therefore, to my mind, exceptionally important that Christians be conversant with the issues that face us. And I have to say that most of the Christians I've known (those who aren't gay themselves) haven't got a lot of talent for handling those issues with understanding. There are certainly exceptions; and it's also worth saying that, though it was far from perfect, my own childhood and adolescence were for the most part unusually free of homophobia, both at home and in the evangelical church I was raised in. But the fact remains that I don't think Christians in general have learned to engage the matter well, and I want us to.Gabriel Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-9726501717919495132013-12-03T18:17:07.273-08:002013-12-03T18:17:07.273-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-90007364547493259212013-12-03T08:29:17.084-08:002013-12-03T08:29:17.084-08:00If, by saying he is no longer gay, he means simply...If, by saying he is no longer gay, he means simply that he does not primarily identify with being attracted to men, well, I can hardly criticize him for that. I consider that an element of my identity, and an important one, but not my primary defining characteristic. If that's the case, however, I honestly can't take a great deal of interest in what words he does or doesn't prefer to use to describe it. I use the word "gay" because it is common parlance, not because I'm specially attached to it.<br /><br />If, however, the contention is that he has become straight, I must admit to a certain amount of skepticism. It might well be true, and I am loath to call anybody a liar. But it is not unknown for fluctuations in sexual orientation to be temporary, shallow, or even instances of autosuggestion, and I'm therefore leery of putting weight on professed instances of them -- at any rate, without knowing the claimant on a personal basis. (I haven't expressed any assent to biological determinism, and for the record I don't believe in it, so I'm not sure I see the relevance here.)<br /><br />If and to the extent that he has changed, however, I don't believe that the law is why -- not even if he does. "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness came through the law, then Christ died in vain."Gabriel Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-794060155774078182013-12-03T00:59:49.296-08:002013-12-03T00:59:49.296-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-20232047065438895242013-12-02T23:48:33.886-08:002013-12-02T23:48:33.886-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-70716777765320346922013-12-02T06:36:03.067-08:002013-12-02T06:36:03.067-08:00Well, I don't really see how you got that out ...Well, I don't really see how you got that out of anything I said, honestly. I specifically said that I assent to the Church's theology and am lamenting what I regard as failure, on the part of her people (both lay and clerical), to practice that theology consistently. I'm therefore kind of lost by your comment.<br /><br />As to history, though, least us be a little clearer. The history of the Church is stained with sins of every kind, homophobia not excepted. But let's try to maintain a sense of proportion. I will never say that injustice is okay as long as it's small; nevertheless, from what you've written hitherto, it sounds almost as though your regard the oppression of gay people by straight people as the chief activity and concern of the Catholic Church. That isn't the case: her main concerns are so far from that as to make this issue a subsidiary aspect of a subsidiary aspect (and perhaps, partly, explain her very imperfect handling of the question).<br /><br />Whether, as you've said elsewhere, her doctrine was formulated by straight people is a question that isn't answerable and doesn't greatly interest me, since the sexual orientation of a person who formulated a belief does not correlate to whether that belief is true. However, though it has in fact been linked to great injustices, the deliberate oppression of gays can't really be said to have been one of the Church's aims, because neither she nor anyone else thought of us as a distinct class of people. Sexual orientation, though an exceedingly useful concept in my opinion, is also a recent one, stemming from the nineteenth century; we can hardly accuse anyone of oppressing gays if they didn't have a concept of gay people first.<br /><br />I think we might also try to be a little more balanced in our concept of homophobia throughout history. The Church did not introduce homophobia into the world; it existed well before she did (pagan Rome being a tolerably good example). Nor was it a major concern of hers in the early centuries, as the New Testament suggests by its nearly (though not quite) total lack of attention to the issue. And homophobia has shown itself quite capable of thriving in contexts that are post-Christian and even militantly anti-Christian; the Third Reich is probably the most famously homophobic government in history, and also the most fiercely anti-Christian, as infallible Wikipedia's page on the Kirchenkampf does in fact outline pretty well.<br /><br />As I said, I am not saying, and never will say, that injustices do not matter. What I am saying is that an intelligent discussion of the subject -- which I believe to be essential to the wise correction of injustice, so as to avoid fresh injustices, in either different directions or the same one over again -- requires a balanced view of the underlying causes, both intellectual and historical.Gabriel Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-18480536788589837032013-12-01T09:52:47.511-08:002013-12-01T09:52:47.511-08:00Glad to hear from you -- I've missed your inpu...Glad to hear from you -- I've missed your input, I was hoping you'd pipe up again. :)<br /><br />Now. I most certainly agree that the actual attitude of much, if not most, of the Church (in this country -- I'm not familiar enough with the Church in most other countries to have an opinion) is homophobic; the opposition to ENDA is a good example. There may be legitimate religious liberty concerns attached to that as well, but I don't know, and if anything I would consider that grounds to protest for a redrafting, not grounds to oppose the act as such; and as far as I know, it is indeed the act as such that they are opposing, which fills me with bitter sadness. I agree, too, that such behavior is absolutely contrary to the Catechism.<br /><br />About the language of the Catechism, however, I am inclined to defend what I have written elsewhere. I won't of course claim that "depravity" is a pretty word, to put it mildly; part of the reason that I don't read homophobia in it is that the word is equally applied to a host of other things that the Church regards as sinful, and so gay sex isn't being singled out (even among sexual sins) by the use of the term.<br /><br />I hesitate over the claim that the phrase "intrinsically disordered" is an attempt to pathologize people. Certainly it is often used in that sense (particularly by organizations like the NOM). That being said, the Thomist underpinnings of the phrase link it specifically to desire, not to the person as such -- cold comfort, but important if we are discussing the intrinsic rights of the human person apart from what they may desire. I don't think it necessarily follows from this teaching that a same-sex relationship would be any worse than a straight one, at least not if the men or women involved were trying to live as brothers or as sisters, to adapt the Church's phrase for reconciling divorced couples to the Church.<br /><br />All of that being said -- it is the unvarnished truth that the actual preaching and conduct of many Catholics, priests included, is precisely one of suspicion of gay couples at best, and outright demeaning and rejection at worst. I can't and won't deny that the Church is guilty of a great deal of homophobic language and decision-making, and, what is perhaps worse, of all too often denying that there is a problem in the first place. I'm glad to hear of your friend who found an exception to that.Gabriel Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-36782144679594832712013-12-01T07:48:05.096-08:002013-12-01T07:48:05.096-08:00Hi Gabe -
I need to briefly chew some old food.....Hi Gabe - <br /><br />I need to briefly chew some old food...bear with me...it's germane to this post.<br /><br />First, I appreciate that the natural law ethic is consistently applied in Catholic teaching - not just to matters of homosexuality. For that reason, I don't think it can be considered, in and of itself, homophobic.<br /><br />However, I wholly disagree with you that the language of the church teaching is clinical and somehow less severe than its common usage. The word "depravity" is just as freighted with moral judgment in the catechism as it is in the vernacular; "intrinsically disordered" is an attempt to pathologize people who are gay even in the most charitable reading. You are trying to blunt a razor blade; the difference to the people cut by it is immaterial.<br /><br />The church teaching, in essence, says that even people in covenant same-sex relationships are sick, sexually deviant, degenerates. The church teaches the parishioner that gay relationships are immoral and inferior (i.e., those who enter them are bad people). Couple that with the facts that it's hard to hide this "depravity" (unlike other sins like premarital sex), and that gay people are sexual minorities...and, ya, it's utterly unsurprising that church teaching engenders homophobia.<br /><br />On a related but different note, the church leadership models homophobia in high profile ways. This would suggest that it is morally acceptable to the church. The US Council of Catholic Bishops is fighting hard against the Employment Non Discrimination Act because it provides legal protection for people who engage in gay sex. They want to make it legal to fire someone for being in a gay relationship - not just those people employed by the Catholic church. I'm also reminded of the gym teacher at the Catholic high school who was fired because, even though she was closeted at work, her wife's name was listed with hers in a relative's funeral announcement (too bad the wife's name wasn't Pat). The idea that gay people are so immoral that they should be deprived of a paycheck is stomach-churning and seems to me to be completely contrary to the catechism. <br /><br />I think there is often much more charity and compassion at the parish level. My most devout Catholic friend is gay, married, and raising his son Catholic. His family is welcomed with open arms at mass each Saturday and they have never been denied eucharist. <br /><br />As always, Gabe, I thank you for inviting the frank examination of faith and sexuality. It's an important conversation.<br /><br />My best to you<br /><br />Ford<br /><br /> Ford1968http://fordswords.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-52210942816043036732013-12-01T03:20:06.409-08:002013-12-01T03:20:06.409-08:00Two very different discourses. From a Catholic poi...Two very different discourses. From a Catholic point of view there is no <i>homophobia</i>. From a gay point of view everything deemed <i>anti-gay</i> is homophobia. Therefore this discussion is totally futile as we won't agree on anything.<br /><br />@Anon2478 - don't count on it, honey.t1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-56627503917777280302013-11-30T16:00:33.270-08:002013-11-30T16:00:33.270-08:00Anon2478 —
Are you a troll? How else can you expla...Anon2478 —<br />Are you a troll? How else can you explain twisting, "The Catholic doctrine of the morality of the act of gay sex is well known, and need not be belabored …," and, "I am concerned here only to set forth exactly what the Catholic doctrine is, and why I think, on these very premises, that we can still have a meaningful dialogue about homophobia and its wrongness," into "arguing for some sort of special reform of your church's antigay theology and beliefs?"<br /><br />No, Gabriel is not arguing for a change in <i>"theology and beliefs"</i> but for a more consistent application of those things, which would exclude homophobia.<br /><br />And as for "all of human history, practically," the fact is that for almost all of it, nobody knew that "we" existed. Some people engaged in homosexual acts, but the concept of a homosexual orientation didn't exist (which is one of the grounds some people use to try to prove that St. Paul didn't mean what he said). So the Catholic Church is still sorting the whole thing out. IMO the passage from the Catechism that Gabriel quoted and the American Bishops' letter "Always Our Children" are very good.<br /><br />But anyway, you have no complaint with what Gabriel wrote, only with a straw man of your own devising.naturgesetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15268507379933286863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-26190312172593173572013-11-30T10:12:37.395-08:002013-11-30T10:12:37.395-08:00So you're arguing for some sort of special ref...So you're arguing for some sort of special reform of your church's antigay theology and beliefs? So that it won't defame us the way it did the past... Oh, all of human history, practically?<br /><br />How gracious, Gabe.Anon2478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-74990161874545833242013-11-29T21:07:42.197-08:002013-11-29T21:07:42.197-08:00Well thought through and well said.
Phobias, howe...Well thought through and well said.<br /><br />Phobias, however are mental pathologies, not actions. I'd say therefore that the unjust actions you call homophobia are not precisely homophobia, but injustices motivated by homophobia.<br /><br />BTW, I think the sentence in the Catechism which states, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," is the part of the Church's teaching on homosexuality which is least known and therefore what need to be most widely presented.naturgesetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15268507379933286863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-88122258578455155762013-11-29T19:46:06.952-08:002013-11-29T19:46:06.952-08:00Thanks for this. Very clear and careful definition...Thanks for this. Very clear and careful definitions and explanations. It's really fascinating to explore all the situations that even careful Catholics might not realize are homophobic actions. Erik Gravelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11870313165279843879noreply@blogger.com