Monday, August 11, 2008

First We Take Minneapolis

It would appear that some so-called traditional Catholics are crying foul of the latest example of what’s been described as the “gay gotcha agenda.”

According to one individual, the inclusion of the Twin Cities Gay Men’s Chorus in a series of concerts to be staged in association with the “Vatican Splendors” exhibit at the Minnesota History Museum is an example of this particular agenda, one which, in all seriousness, he defines as follows:

. . . quietly place a gay group on the program, be it Dignity, a gay choir, or something. . . then when the thing goes forward, lo and behold, the gays and their supporters are right there making noise. Now the [Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis] is in a pickle, pull support and be decried as homophobic, say nothing and appear to give tacit support. It’s the gay gotcha. And the Chancery, in their usual statements of plausible deniability, well, they just don’t know how this happened, [and are left] clucking like court eunuchs.

It needs to be noted that the “Splendors of the Vatican” exhibit is not being brought to town by the local archdiocese. Nor is it being held on church property. That, of course, hasn’t stopped some more Inquisitional-minded Catholics from calling for the chancery to withdraw archdiocesan endorsement of the exhibit while ever the Twin Cities Gay Men’s Chorus is somehow connected to it.

A spokesperson for the chancery, however, citing the Vatican document, “The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” reminded the Taliban-like Catholics among us that, as Catholics, we are not to discriminate against homosexual persons.

Oh, really? Is this plea for non-discrimination against gay people coming from the same chancery whose leadership bent over backwards (no pun intended) to support and push for an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would not only have banned same-gender marriage but domestic partnerships and civil unions? Yes, it is, which makes the chancery’s plea for non-discrimination against gay people all the more disingenuous. (Thankfully this proposed amendment was defeated in 2006).

But back to this supposed “gay gotcha agenda.” I thought it was only leftists and liberals who were supposed to conspiracy nuts. Obviously, those on the right can be just as crazy. I mean, think about it: can you really see a group of Broadway queens conspiring to bring down the Roman Catholic Church?

Yet some Catholics really do fear that “political maneuvering” will take place once the gay boys of the chorus hit the stage; that these same gay boys will (tunefully, of course) push an “agenda” – much to the embarrassment of those “court eunuchs” at the chancery.

Oh, one can only wish! Here’s hoping some brave soul involved with the Twin Cities Gay Men’s Chorus does indeed opt to pursue and push an “agenda.” I’m all for “agenda” pushing – especially if by “agenda” we’re talking about relating people’s lived experience, and sharing such experience so as to counter ignorance, insensitivity, and oppression.

In this spirit of truth telling and liberation, here are a few song suggestions for the Twin Cities Gay Men’s Chorus for when it performs as part of the “Splendors of the Vatican” program:

The George Gershwin classic, “The Man I Love”

“We Kiss in the Shadows” from The King and I

“I’m Getting Married in the Morning” from My Fair Lady

Image: Peter and Steve of Gay Abandon, West Yorkshire’s lesbian, gay, and bisexual choir. (Photo by Mark Weeks.)


Anonymous said...

I lived the same-sex "life" style for thirty years before giving it up in humility before the Word of God.

I really can't see how you can distort the clear wording of the Bible and nearly 2000 years of Catholic teaching?

How do you get around the First Commandment? (... thou shall have no other god but me)

And please don't give me any of that line about how St. Paul wasn't talking about "loving monogamous" "gay" couples. If you use that line of reasoning, then we have to approve of "loving monogamous incestuous" couples too, because the scriptures about incest didn't specifically address them either.

What I'm afraid you've got here is the religion of homosexuality. It seems that your whole world revolves around it, and that you love it more than anything else. I understand that because I was like that too. But man, it feels great to have that monkey off my back.

Homosexual acts are evil, and when the mind embraces them as the form of an identity that evil is strengthened to the point where up is down and down is up, normal is abnormal and abnormal is normal. That's the hallmark of Satan.

Anonymous said...

How does your religion of homosexuality fit someone like me in? Does it make room for my story? I've live the "gay life" (aka "miserable death") for thirty years and I know the "gay" community very well, but unlike you, I'm willing to tell the truth about it. And it's a truth that would shock decent people. Drugs, depression, sexual addiction, pornography, cross dressing, men calling themselves women, more drugs, cruising in parks and bathrooms, prostitution, and above all... the hatred of the normal, the denial of nature, the hatred of real masculinity and femininity. All is thrown overboard in the hope that it will lead to personal happiness. But it doesn't, so the "gay" person next wants to demolish religion, again in the hope of personal happiness.

Face the facts. Homosexuality is a demonic charade, a never ending search for fulfillment that never comes. Hence all the drugs, depression, compulsive sexual addictions. Look at the ads in any "gay" newspaper... all ads for psychotherapy, drug counseling, strippers, pornography and male prostitutes.

The Church doesn't want us to live like that. That's not discrimination. It's telling us the truth in love and compassion. I got sold a bill of goods when I was a kid about all the "gay" crap. It took me years to realize how much I had been lied to. I'm so glad I had a Church to come back to that didn't send me back into the cesspool of "gay life", aka "miserable death."

Exactly how many years after Stonewall did AIDS first show up? Coincidence? Do we have to wait for the next pandemic to strike before we realize how demonic homosexuality is?


kevin57 said...

I wonder how many of the CT's (Catholic Talibans) would pull their support from the Vatican Museum or boycott polyphony since much of these things, as well as a whole lot of artistic treasures of the Church were produced by homomsexuals.

Markf, the behaviors you assign to a gay lifestyle are syptomatic; that is, gays (and anyone else) afflicted with self-loathing turn to drugs, etc. in an attempt to medicate their pain. Once gays love themselves for who they are, those behaviors decrease. Don't believe me? That's what psychotherapists have been saying for quite some time.

Michael J. Bayly said...

It's also the experience of the vast majority of gay people.

Thanks, Kevin, for your measured and gentle response to MarkF's rather bitter and angry recounting of his experiences as a gay man.



CDE said...

Is this plea for non-discrimination against gay people coming from the same chancery whose leadership bent over backwards (no pun intended) to support and push for an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would not only have banned same-gender marriage but domestic partnerships and civil unions? Yes, it is, which makes the chancery’s plea for non-discrimination against gay people all the more disingenuous.

Yes, it is coming from the same chancery, but I don't see it as inconsistent. Recognizing marriage as something that happens between a man and a woman is not a form of discrimination against homosexual persons.

The fact is that the state recognizes marriages because of the benefits that accrue to society from men and women who contract a lifelong bond and, within that bond, procreate and raise children.

The chancery was acting in a way consistent with this teaching from the Vatican:

It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase. (source)