tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post7447614624028954982..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: An Exciting EndeavorMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-11788269556207505032009-10-30T13:40:27.171-05:002009-10-30T13:40:27.171-05:00Wonderful comments, TheraP. Thank you for sharing...Wonderful comments, TheraP. Thank you for sharing them here at <em>The Wild Reed</em>. I hope you visit here again and share on a regular basis your wise and passionate thoughts and insights.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-19360779016041861382009-10-30T13:22:42.654-05:002009-10-30T13:22:42.654-05:00I followed Terence over here from Colleen's bl...I followed Terence over here from Colleen's blog. And I'd like to chime in here a bit as I've been thinking about this somewhat myself. Indeed, back in November, I posted something on a political website, though from a spiritual perspective. So I'd like to throw that into the hopper here, if you don't mind:<br /><br />http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/11/dignity-hospitality-community.php<br /><br />Because it seems to me that altogether too much has been made of "legalistic" proof texts to condemn people ("created in God's image"!), whereas the virtues (of hospitality and community and love and compassion and kindness and justice, etc.) would DEMAND that we love our neighbor - no matter who that neighbor is or is called to be.<br /><br />I always like to start with the Trinity. With "relationship" being an essential component of everything, from the Divine Life on down to the smallest iotas like the quanta of the universe. And I like to ground my ethics in the principles which one can derive from the way Jesus <i>interacted</i> with others. <br /><br />I'm not a theologian, though I've studied some theology. I'm a therapist, a psychologist. And a believer that part of being human is being spiritual. <br /><br />It seems to me that sometimes we've allowed conservatives to decide on the "playing field" of an argument, a debate. Instead of defining the "playing field" for ourselves. I'd far rather see playing fields which insist that any "rule" apply to everyone. The rule of love. The rule of justice. The rule of fidelity. Love your neighbor. Love your enemy. Etc. Instead, the RC hierarchy of late seems to have cordoned off little sections, where "rules" apply to some but not to all and rules exclude these "some" - whether gays or women, etc.<br /><br />So I start with the Trinity. And I start with the assumption that virtues, rather than legalistic "proof texts" be the basis of ethics. And I insist that whatever the rules turn out to be, they must be ones that apply equally to all of us. Beyond that, of course, there's the whole issue of ethical decision-making of how one balances "goods" or refrains from doing harm to anyone - again a balancing act.<br /><br />I have one more thought prompted by the post and discussion here. The absence of "language" is a way of making people or problems invisible. Eskimos, for example, have something like 20 terms for "snow". And they can talk about snow in ways we can't even conceive! Without words, without language, experience remains "unformulated" and unavailable for analysis. Yes, we need words for how to discuss this! And we need to convert society into using those words! Or the silence and secrecy will continue....<br /><br />Peace be with you. I remain very interested in the future of the Church (in its widest sense) - the people of God - ALL God's people!TheraPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-11604868479082018242009-10-28T22:51:33.888-05:002009-10-28T22:51:33.888-05:00Your work/study group sounds great, Michael. As a...Your work/study group sounds great, Michael. As a relatively straight woman, I support your attempt to wrench church teaching into line with the Gospel of love. It is an exciting endeavor.Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00135199120788030871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-9017480301209519632009-10-28T21:54:23.195-05:002009-10-28T21:54:23.195-05:00Yes, Michael, that is wonderful that President Oba...Yes, Michael, that is wonderful that President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Act. This sends a powerful message. I am still waiting to hear "Courage's" take on this. I hope that they approve of gay people getting added protection against hate crimes. It would be good if they could stand up against hate, bigotry and prejudice directed against gay people. Some of those people think that gay people should put up with ill treatment as part of "carrying their cross." On the other hand, they tend to go easy on the homophobes (even though they don't care for that term).Mareczkuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13122584421854834046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-77843518936113158902009-10-28T21:42:14.916-05:002009-10-28T21:42:14.916-05:00Hi Mark,
Thanks for your great comment. I have c...Hi Mark,<br /><br />Thanks for your great comment. I have come across the term "homosexualist." It's another rather pathetic attempt by anti-gay elements to frame the issue using a term divorced from the experiences and insights of actual gay people.<br /><br />If the potential consequences of such attempts weren't so dangerous and tragic for gay people, they'd be laughable. Still, I take heart that President Obama signed into law today the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation - one which, as I'm sure you're aware, adds acts of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to the list of federal hate crimes.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-17185832798298047452009-10-28T21:08:21.166-05:002009-10-28T21:08:21.166-05:00That was an excellent article, Michael. Also, a g...That was an excellent article, Michael. Also, a great discussion between Terence and you. I don't get the expression, "people with same-sex attractions." In truth, I think that most people do have some attraction to people of the same sex. Many people find people of the same sex attractive. I think such a term reduces people to an attraction. I agree with you a little Terence about the term LGBT. I don't care for the term "queer" as I consider it a put-down. I prefer "gay". I go to a Catholic news site and they use the word "homosexualist." Do you know if this is actually a real word? Or is it just a slang term? I have never seen this word used before I went to this Catholic site. I feel that they use it as an insult. Is this a word that the Church uses?Mareczkuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13122584421854834046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-18108819740922867262009-10-28T19:08:37.932-05:002009-10-28T19:08:37.932-05:00Absolutely I agree with you Michael. I guess I mu...Absolutely I agree with you Michael. I guess I must have just misread your words - sorry: should have done better.<br /><br />I still weary of the need, let alone impossibility, of finding a simple agreed term to describe us. We don't need a word to describe those who like redheads, the Greeks did not need a word for guys who preferred men.<br /><br />Nor should we.Terencehttp://queeringthechurch.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-45464490154387838122009-10-28T11:18:23.832-05:002009-10-28T11:18:23.832-05:00Hi Terence,
Thanks for your comment and positive ...Hi Terence,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment and positive feedback on our work here in the Twin Cities.<br /><br />Just a point of clarification: we prefer "LGBT" over "people with same-sex attractions" as the former is what I think most gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people would opt for if given a choice between the two. <br /><br />As I'm sure you know, the institutional component of the Roman Catholic Church (arrogantly, in my opinion) choices not to acknowledge or use the term LGBT - or gay, lesbian, etc. It does this because 1) without genuine dialogue or consultation with others, it’s attempting to frame and the issue from within its own closed circuit system of circular logic; and 2) it believes that terms such as gay or LGBT connote certain ideological commitments that are contrary to being a Catholic. Of course, it’s ludicrous to think that the term “same-sex attraction” and its substitution for “gay” or “LGBT” doesn’t itself connote certain ideological commitments.<br /><br />For Catholics who can only ever talk of “same-sex attractions,” chief among these “commitments” is an unquestioning obedience to the Magisterium.<br /><br />Yet as I note <a href="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2007/01/many-forms-of-courage-part-i.html" rel="nofollow">elsewhere</a>, those who base their Catholic identity on such obedience have, in fact, grafted a reactionary, fear-based ideology onto a religion that in actuality is all about inclusion, justice, community, and compassion – all of which convey a sense of ongoing journey or pilgrimage when it comes to understanding and living our Catholic faith.<br /><br />LGBT Catholics, and indeed all who advocate for the basic human rights of LGBT people within both church and society, embody such an understanding of the faith. Accordingly, they seem to me to be more aligned with the authentic Christian values of inclusion, justice, community, and compassion, than those who commit to unquestioning obedience to the teachings of the Magisterium and, by extension, an understanding of church modeled on the paradigm of absolute monarchy.<br /><br />I think it’s important to remember that such unquestioning obedience to the Magisterium also means unquestioning obedience to the discredited science, impoverished sexual theology, and biblical and doctrinal fundamentalism which, sadly, goes along with the Magisterium’s understanding of human sexuality.<br /><br />I know, Terence, that you would be in total agreement with me when I say that as Catholics we can and should do better.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-48568660935033511332009-10-28T06:24:37.400-05:002009-10-28T06:24:37.400-05:00Thanks Michael. It's a great job you guys are...Thanks Michael. It's a great job you guys are doing, and good to have the process described for all the rest of us. I'm glad you point out that the theology already exists (at least in outline), and not only in actual practice. It is clear to anyone who begins to go into the matter, that there is a huge disjunction between what the Vatican proclaims, and what the theologians are saying.<br /><br />As James Alison has pointed out, it can be only a matter of time before the institutional church catches up. What your team are doing is what we should all be doing in one way or another to push the process along: God speed in your endeavours.<br /><br />The only point where I take issue is with your preference for “people with same-sex attractions.” over LGBT, because "This last recommendation respects the basic courtesy of allowing individuals to identify and name themselves."<br /><br />I don't believe that is how the community in general does describe themselves - there simply is no agreement on any terminology (I wish there were). Personally, I dislike the alphabet soup of LGBT or LGBTQI; I dislike your formulation as too lengthy. I like simply "gay", but accept that many people don't see it as inclusive. I also like queer, as a shorthand for including all sexual minorities, straight or gay - but some still find it offensive.<br /><br />There is no solution - so until we find consensus (unlikely), I just flounder from one term to the next, using a range of words in different contexts.Terencehttp://queeringthechurch.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com