Loving Our Enemies, Not Killing Ourselves

On October 15th the Roman Catholic archbishop of Denver, Colorado, Charles Chaput—who (in)famously averred that voting for John Kerry for president in 2004 was mortally sinful, requiring penance—spoke to a diocesan conference in Victoria, British Columbia.  His basic point—that since the 1960′s American youth and popular culture have been noticeably losing control of any coherent “moral vocabulary”—is fair enough.  The same phenomenon has been diagnosed with considerable intellectual subtlety in Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue (1981) and Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind (1987).  (And though both men have long been darlings of the Right, neither was / is “conservative” in any conventional sense: MacIntyre’s proclivities run to Marxism as well as Catholicism; and Bloom was a cold classical rationalist and agnostic, in addition to having been fabulously gay.)

But reading Archbishop Chaput’s remarks I was seized by an intense schizoidal feeling.  The words, by themselves, were fine; their probable intended meaning was dreadful:

The central issue is whether we ourselves really do believe….  If we’re Christians, we’re each called to be teachers and missionaries….  If we’re embarrassed about Church teachings, or if we disagree with them, or if we’ve decided that they’re just too hard to live by, or too hard to explain, then we’ve already defeated ourselves.  We need to really believe what we claim to believe.  We need to stop calling ourselves “Catholic” if we don’t stand with the Church in her teachings—all of them.

Simon.  Simon.  I have somewhat to say to thee … [1]

Perhaps I’m being uncharitable to the archbishop, but I’d like to hazard a guess here.  When Chaput insists on youth needing to not be embarrassed by, and needing to obey, “all” of the Church’s teachings, he ain’t talkin’ about the teaching against usury.  (Which sin might better have been militated against by a vote for John Kerry, than by a vote for George W. Bush.)

Of course, truly we ought so to stand with the Church in her teachings, all of them.  But what does a pious statement such as that mean?  The Church teaches many things, and not all of them with equal authority, or even with equal clarity; and their truth depends on more than the mere fact that certain hierarchs have subscribed or do subscribe to them.

Reading the text of Chaput’s remarks, a passion darker than righteous indignation takes hold of me.  It frankly borders on hatred.  Something I do not think that the comfortably straight world often realizes, is both the extent and the omnipresence of internal division in even self-accepting queer Christians’ minds.  At its dullest such division is like the toothache you can never simply forget or be rid of.  Frequently we are compelled to regard our own natural families, and also our spiritual families—the priests and bishops who minister to us—as the practical enemies of our temporal happiness; and we must be quick to fear the vicious meanings veiled behind their outwardly-ordinary words.  Continuing to demonstrate love to them nevertheless is one of the most important forms of queer Christian witness.

The trick is to reprove Simon as does Our Lord, without hatred.  And this is not easy to do.

To Chaput, With Love

Hating the “Ick” Factor, and the Humility to Let It Go

If you will suffer a personal example: in recent months I have slowly begun coming out to my extended family.  To my immediate family, of course, and to any of my friends worth the name, I have been out for years, and one supposes that casual observers, too, have always perceived what I am, more or less.  With my extended family, however, I have until now remained closeted, principally due to the wishes of one of my parents, whom I know to be ashamed that I turned out gay.  This parental unit’s shame, I hasten to add, is not the fruit of any great intellectual understanding of, or allegiance to, the Church’s traditional teaching, which if it were I could respect.  It is, by the said parental unit’s own, and repeated, admission, entirely the fruit of the “ick factor.”  (Certain uses for certain orifices are too gross to be imagined; the imaginations of the family must be spared.)  (As if I had not already lived 18 very homo-*sexual* years under your own roof, God damn you to hell.)

… thou a man of one mind, my guide, and my familiar … [2]

Hatred, like any unbridled passion, lends itself to overstatement.  The reality, in my case, is that I have ordinarily loving parents who have nurtured and privileged me far above what most parents in the world are able to do for their children.  They never hit me.  They educated me extremely well.  I am not a victim of any wider social persecution.

And yet—recalled by the recent spate of gay teen suicides, including some only perceived to be gay—I cannot stop my ears from hearing,

“EWWW … IT’S [my name]!”

That was my first day of school of the fifth grade, when I walked into homeroom.

Humans characteristically need to be publicly honored more than they need to be fed.  The fundamental political precondition for being able to correct the bigot without hatred, is public honor—such as legal gay marriage, for example, would help confer.

Honor Before Food

But the fundamental spiritual precondition for correcting another without hatred, for doing anything at all without hatred, is, of course, humility.  And humility is not some “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed” assertion of one’s own extreme badness, made while secretly knowing oneself to be good, or at least not so bad as all that.  Humility, rather, is knowing yourself accurately for who and what you are.  Anthony Borisovitch Bloom, archbishop of Sourozh, of blessed memory, and the beloved long-time pastor of the Russian Orthodox diaspora in England, makes this point:

The word “humility” comes from the Latin word humus which means fertile ground.  To me, humility is not what we often make of it: the sheepish way of trying to imagine that we are the worst of all and trying to convince others that our artificial ways of behaving show that we are aware of that.  Humility is the situation of the earth.  The earth is always there, always taken for granted, never remembered, always trodden on by everyone, somewhere we cast and pour all our refuse, all we don’t need.  It’s there, silent and accepting everything and in a miraculous way making out of all the refuse new richness in spite of corruption, transforming corruption itself into a power of life and a new possibility of creativeness, open to the sunshine, open to the rain, ready to receive any seed we sow and capable of bringing thirtyfold, sixtyfold, a hundredfold out of every seed. [3]

Being gay surrounded by anti-gay society is the most marvelous school of humility I have (speaking for myself) yet encountered.  You know yourself to be helpless—helpless to change your desires, on the one hand, and helpless to quit your society, on the other; helpless, in a deeper sense, to do or to be other than as God would have you.  And—O mystery!—you know yourself to be therefore, potentially, just as helpful.

vozradujemsja

Victor de Villa Lapidis


[1] “And one of the Pharisees desired him to eat with him.  And he went into the house of the Pharisee, and sat down to meat.  And behold a woman that was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment; And standing behind at his feet, she began to wash his feet, with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.  And the Pharisee, who had invited him, seeing it, spoke within himself, saying: This man, if he were a prophet, would know surely who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner.  And Jesus answering, said to him: Simon, I have somewhat to say to thee.  But he said: Master, say it.  A certain creditor had two debtors, the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.  And whereas they had not wherewith to pay, he forgave them both.  Which therefore of the two loveth him most?  Simon answering, said: I suppose that he to whom he forgave most.  And he said to him: Thou hast judged rightly.  And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman?  I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she with tears hath washed my feet, and with her hairs hath wiped them.  Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet.  My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet.  Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.”  (Luc. vii. 36-47)

[2] “For if my enemy had reviled me, I would verily have borne with it.  And if he that hated me had spoken great things against me, I would perhaps have hidden my self from him.  But thou a man of one mind, my guide, and my familiar, Who didst take sweetmeats together with me: in the house of God we walked with consent.  Let death come upon them, and let them go down alive into hell.”  (Ps. liv. 13-16)

[3] Anthony Bloom, Beginning to Pray (New York: Paulist Press, 1970), p. 35.

Published in: on October 31, 2010 at 5:11 pm  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://homodoxconfessions.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/loving-our-enemies-not-killing-ourselves/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I never knew that about Bloom. Now that I come to think of it, despite being something of a cult author he does seem to have been underestimated by the political mainstream. Not surprising, really!

  2. @Catholic Boy: Just to clarify–since I made the mistake of referring in the very same post to two very different Blooms–you are of course referring to Allan, the professor. Here is a short-ish but pointed commentary by Andrew Sullivan on the topic of Professor Bloom’s sexuality and its significance for American conservatism:

    http://igfculturewatch.com/2000/04/17/longing-remembering-allan-bloom/

    And no, not at all surprising.

    Best,
    Victor

  3. Don’t get bent out of shape over Abp. Chaput. He’s no more than a sound bite vending machine for the christianist wing of the GOP. He’s a company man and a career climber. It’s a shame that he resorts to ridiculous conflations of religion and public life to serve his own ends. How many men and women in history have prostituted themselves for worthless power? Even Cicero was rumored to be a bottom.

    The true Catholic heart of darkness lies in the ex-gay group Courage. Read of this group’s purposeful comparison of Matthew Shepherd’s death and that of Mary Stachowicz, a woman murdered by a disturbed gay man. Bp. Paprocki suggests that Ms. Stachowicz be named the patron of Courage, as she was martyred for her opposition to homosexuality.

    http://www.couragerc.net/Paprocki%20Homily.htm

    Do you not see the insidious nature of this message? Homosexuals are inherently vicious and ready to murder those who disagree with them. Mary Stachowicz’s death is somehow more “worthy” than Matthew Shepherd’s because she died not for being gay but opposing a brutal stereotype of all hay people. God save us from Courage. Evil to the core.

  4. @sortacatholic: Thanks for this. Reading through the text of Bishop Paprocki’s homily, I was struck by his eagerness to declare Mary Stachowicz a martyr. It is not clear to me from the little bit that was stated, that she was killed *because* she was a Christian. Of course, political considerations enter into canonizations all the time, but this is certainly over the top, to put it mildly.

    The talk by Archbishop Collins I mentioned back in July was in fact co-sponsored by the Toronto chapter of Courage. I’ve never had any dealings with them myself, so I can’t speak very intelligently about them, but I was not impressed by their decision to put up a young Colombian woman alongside the archbishop, in order to deliver her “testimonial”–which included an admission that she had stopped being gay only six months previous, and that her conversion crisis back to the Church had been prompted by a proposal of marriage from her then-girlfriend. Not only do I think that Courage gave her bad spiritual advice, but listening to her I had the distinct feeling that her emotional life was being manipulated by the cathedral in the most tasteless way. It was an awfully poor show.

    Regards,
    Victor

  5. Thanks for the article. Since I’m a “western” Christian I can’t comment on the Orthodox approach to the homosexuality question. “Same sex attraction” can be used in a non-ideological way. This is especially true if the person(s) in question do not wish to self identify as LGBT. That’s not how Courage and similar use the term. In their case it’s a dodge to avoid the question of homosexuality as an identity. The use of SSA is also a tertium quid to wedge reparative “therapy” (read: abuse) into the postmodern secular sexual discourse without using christian-y language.

    Your analysis of Bp. Paprocki’s sermon is much more charitable than mine. My analysis concluded that this was an attempt to paint gay people as psychotic and barbaric; certainly, history has shown this to be an effective way of dehumanising and ultimately destroying marginalised people. You’re probably right that this is just a clumsy conflation of two not necessarily related ideas. That’s disturbing but not necessarily malicious.

    I survived Courage. Granted, I only attended two months’ worth of meetings. The focus is on shaming, scaring, and insulting “the gay away”. This approach is abusive and ultimately futile. The only “result” is emotional abuse and scarring of the “patient”. This is why I am automatically suspicious of Courage’s public statements.

    Courage is a political solution to a pastoral “problem” (I don’t think that homosexuality per se is a ‘problem’. Rather, it is a inexplicable psychosexual variation within humanity. Guess that makes me a heretic.) Sure, a cunning Svengali can get anyone to act a certain way out of fear. I also suspect that Courage exists more to put the gay priests in line and prevent them from speaking out about the blackmail and backbiting in the clergy.

  6. @sortacatholic: Thanks for sharing this. My principal intention in the post above was to articulate the anger I feel in certain characteristic situations (whenever I hear the “ick factor” cited as a rationale against homosexual relationships, especially by family or friends who ought to know better; or whenever I hear clergy talking about holy orthodoxy as if it were a totalistic ideology). To some extent such anger as I feel can be constructive, when it manifests as righteous indignation. But often as not anger manifests itself as just another soul-besetting passion, and as such is destructive of my peace and happiness. I wonder if I shall ever learn to negotiate successfully between these two.

    I did not mean to disagree with your interpretation of Bishop Paprocki’s remarks. Alas, I think you’re only too logical about the implication. I do hope, however, that that implication was relatively subconscious and unintentional.

    Your comment about Courage’s real purpose being to keep the lid on gay clergy is intriguing. We should follow that line of thought up in future.

    Thanks again,
    Victor

  7. Hi, I used to attend Courage meeting and found the members quite friendlier and sincere then folks I met or tried to meet in bars.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: