Monday, I went to the blessing of the Lummi Nation's Shared Responsibilities totem pole, which was held at St. Philip. The event was meant to raise awareness about environmental issues as much as it was to cultivate a sense of community among everyone concerned about the health of our planet and strengthen resistance to the extraction, transportation, and consumption of fossil fuels. Great turnout, and a lot of good speakers. The mood was hopeful, but the message was a sober one: climate change is something that affects all of us, and a collective response to it is imperative.
During the week, I also thought a lot about religion and spirituality in general, coming up with ideas like:
- For me, religion offers an expression of mystery and wonder, a framework of morality built on the principle of harmlessness, an inclusive sense of community, and an exploration of what it means to be human through loving and treating others as yourself, whomever they may be.
- Kamma: What we call morality is a way of expressing this type of psychological, causal determinism and our attempts to maximize our experience of pleasure and happiness and minimize our experience of pain and suffering.
- The danger of religion is in the human proclivity to cling and to make our views into part of our identity that we must then defend from criticism instead of allowing them to enhance and enrich our lives.
- Consciousness is an incredible phenomenon. Think about it. The universe created, through evolution, beings who can be conscious of itself. It's kind of amazing when you think about it from that perspective. Even scientists like Sam Harris are forced to admit its mysteriousness.
- Just as there are physical spectrums that we can't normally detect without assistance (waves of light and colour, frequencies of sounds, etc.), I believe there are similar spectrums of consciousness, which we can explore with the help of contemplation and meditation.
Wednesday and Thursday, I had a rather surprising online argument with a friend from church. I posted about the recent firing of Lauren Brown, who was let go because of her sexual orientation, writing on Facebook:
A "diverse community" with a "dedication to social justice" my ass. I'm not sure what bothers me more, the discrimination or the school's attempts to cover it up. Frankly, this is the kind of thing that makes me embarrassed to have religious and spiritual interests. I don't want to be associated with such people.
Why do religious people, especially those in positions of authority, always seem to cling to the worst aspects of religion and throw away all the good? Before I took the time to read the gospels, I used to think that Jesus must have been a horrible person based on what many Christians do and believe. But I think anyone who's taken the time to read them should realize that what they offer is an expression of mystery and wonder, a framework of morality built on the principle of harmlessness, an inclusive sense of community, and an exploration of what it means to be human through loving and treating your neighbour as yourself, whomever they may be, not a program for religious legalism and discrimination.
I wonder when, if ever, these people will realize that this kind of approach is poisonous and does exactly the opposite of what Jesus was trying to teach the dogmatists of his own time.
That post obviously hit a nerve with Chris, a person from my parish who's pretty left-leaning when it comes to almost everything else, and who responded in a way I found surprising, instigating a rather intense exchange:
Chris: I don't know who your source is, Jason but there is a post from the Archdiocese that seems to be stating that they're being misrepresented by the media, which seems unlikely because the media is typically so fair and accurate when reporting on the Catholic Church (<------thinly veiled sarcasm). I'd get the whole story before issuing a Fatwah. Another thing to consider, the church's teaching on sexuality isn't exactly a secret. If one who has same sex attraction is employed by the Church especially if it's in the capacity as a potential role model for youth they should take that into account when they apply.
Me: Well, my main source is the article from the Willamette Week, including the separation agreement itself, which makes it pretty clear that 1) Brown was fired because of her sexual orientation and not something like poor performance or improper conduct and 2) they wanted her to keep quiet about it. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Archdiocese is being misrepresented by the media, unless you mean the suggestion by some that the Archdiocese played a role in her firing, which this article doesn't suggest.
As for the rest, I don't think expressing my opinion is equivalent to issuing a fatwah (I'm not sure if this is a jab at me or Islam or both, but I don't appreciate it either way); but I will say that I understand the Catholic Church's stance on same-sex marriage and sexual relationships and I completely disagree with it. I think it's not only discriminatory, but it's based on 3,000 year-old tribal social norms and an outdated understanding of nature and the spectrum of human sexuality. I think our understanding of these things has advanced a great deal in the last few millennia, and the Church's position should, too (just as it did with things like the acceptance of evolution).
What I find the most disturbing, though, is the last sentence: "If one who has same sex attraction is employed by the Church especially if it's in the capacity as a potential role model for youth they should take that into account when they apply." To me, this implies that someone who's gay at this school (or any other Catholic-run institution) is a poor role model for the simple fact they're gay. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. We need intelligent and diverse role models, especially in the LGBTQ community, so that LGBTQ kids can grow up with a healthy sense of self-esteem rather than being made to feel like there's something wrong with them.
Is it really so inconceivable that the Church could be wrong about this? Who knows, maybe the Holy Spirit made her apply for this very reason, to be a role model and help further the Church's transformation into the proverbial 'kingdom of heaven,' one that doesn't exclude people out of misguided bigotry and prejudice.
Chris: All I'm trying to say is that out of love for Mother Church we don't jump to conclusions thinking that we can judge what is in the hearts of our brothers & sisters at St Mary's academy. I didn't mean the Fatwah thing as a jab against you, Jason. I think you're disastrously wrong on the church's teaching regarding sexuality & I suspect Father Michael's influence is the culprit. The Church has been around for two millennia, close to five times as long as our nation has been a Republic. The church thrived under mortal persecution for close to twice as long as our nation had been a Republic, a persecution which started less than a generation after the term "Christian" came into being. And despite numerous other heresies the church exists today not much different from when she started save sheer numbers. So I know that fiddling with the church's teachings is above my pay grade. If you haven't read Theology of the Body, you may want to before passing judgment. There are waaaayyyy smarter people than me at the Vatican who do nothing but think, consult scripture, and pray on these matters and they are not going to try to conform God's law to the world.
Me: Hmm, I don't even know where to begin. I guess I should start by saying that my views are independent of any single person or institution. The culprit is my experience and my commitment to equality, which I know in my heart to be right. I don't need any sort of institutional authority to tell me that this kind of discrimination is wrong. I know it's wrong with every fiber of my being. You speak about persecution, well, that's exactly what the dogma of the Church is doing to the LGBTQ community, persecuting them for being who they are out of tradition. And despite what you and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church may think in this instance, I don't believe that to be God's law for one moment; rather, I think it's the small-minded prejudice of people who fail to see how misguided and hurtful they're being.
Chris: God is unchanging. He is perfect love. His law is a gift for us so that we can have ABUNDANT life! He is not trying to restrict us but is letting us know what we need to do to reach the narrow path of salvation. If we were to follow the pagans or the secularists what is the point of Him gifting us the Church?
Me: I know from experience that nothing I can say will likely change the mind of someone who thinks their ideas are infallible. With God on your side, how can you be wrong? But I'd like to suggest a question for reflection: what are the [natural] laws of God and what are the [constructed] laws of people? This is a question I think worth repeatedly asking ourselves. I've reflected on this question (or similar versions thereof) a lot myself. When they're the same, I think we're on the right track. When they're not, I think we have work to do. In this case, I think we have historically misunderstood the nature of things, thinking certain things are wrong or unnatural out of tradition and prejudice. I think that we, historically, have been wrong about this issue, and that this misunderstanding on our part is slowly being corrected. I believe that a morality based on harmlessness is a form of morality more closely in line with the 'laws of God'; and as such, I think that the way we've historically treated LGBTQ people has been nothing but harmful. That needs to change, in my opinion, sooner rather than later.
Chris: Interesting that you would use the term "natural law". Historically I can think of no society with the exception being in the last 20 or so years that recognized life-long homosexual unions. I believe the Church defends its position on such unions from the standpoint of natural law. As far as harmlessness, I couldn't consider any behavior that would separate a person eternally from his Creator as "harmless". Apparently there is to be a synod of the family scheduled for October. I would think that if the Holy Spirit wanted us to radically redefine what we would consider to be a family that might be an ideal time. I will gladly re-assess my position should the Holy Spirit reveal truths contrary to what I've understood them to be to this time. I guess my question for you is, are you willing to accept the truths of Holy Mother Church if they challenge the world's?
Me: You're right. Historically, there weren't many modern societies that legally recognized same-sex unions on a national scale until recently. But that, I would argue, is due more to human prejudice than any sort of natural law. A look at history will show that many societies did accept same-sex unions at one time or another, as well as evincing more nuanced understandings of gender (e.g., some accepting the existence of a 'third gender').
One argument that was used to support this was that of natural law, which was due to two primary misunderstandings: 1) the idea of sex being solely about procreation and 2) same-sex sexual relationships were not 'natural.' Based on these two assumptions, one can argue that same-sex relationships are abnormal or unnatural, but I think they're both equally as false. Sex isn't just about procreation; it's also about pleasure and creating intimate bonds. And we've since come to learn from our studies of nature that same-sex sexual relationships are quite common among mammals, especially primates. Moreover, the study of human sexuality has revealed, I think, that people who are attracted to the same sex are just as normal and psychologically healthy as those who find themselves attracted to the opposite sex.
Things are finally changing now not because of some kind of evil pagan or secular plot against the Church, but because of a better understanding of the diversity of human experience. You may buy the official party line that being in a same-sex relationship somehow separates one from God, but I don't. And I never have. I think this belief is the product of tradition and prejudice, not any sort of divine providence. Ask yourself this: If what you believe is true, why is that the majority of countries that have recognized same-sex unions happen to be predominantly Catholic?
Chris: I'm curious as to how you came to your understanding of the purposes for sex. Do you believe that man can arbitrarily decide these purposes? Is this based on an understanding of biology? You seemed to indicate that natural law could help one determine the morality of same-sex marriage but when I pointed out that natural law did not support same-sex marriage but instead upheld the Church's notion of one man and one woman marriage you wrote it off as prejudice. Is there a chance that maybe your position is incorrect? I would urge you to read Theology of the Body. It isn't about hatred or discrimination it's about living our best versions of ourselves.
Me: If you're gay, I really don't see how marrying someone of the opposite sex or forcing yourself into celibacy is going to help you live out the best version of yourself. Not a single gay person I know thinks that denying their sexuality is healthy or good for them; and those who have tried by fitting in with hetero social norms ended up in bad psychological shape until they were able to 1) admit they were gay and 2) allowed themselves to live life as a gay person. I think the whole idea of 'be straight or be single/celibate' is absurd and unhealthy. My position may be incorrect, but I doubt it. And to be honest, I don't want to debate this with you anymore. Your instance at coming onto my FB and trying to incessantly argue your ideas about sexual morality is starting to upset me. I get that you're against same-sex relationships. I'm not. Please accept that.
I suppose that, deep down, I knew I'd have to confront these kinds of ideas and people at some point. My commitment to equality simply won't allow me to keep silent about things like this, and I recall being afraid of entering the Church because of it. In November, for example, while in the midst of St. Philip's RCIA program, I wrote:
There's a lot about Catholicism that I find appealing, especially the contemplative aspects and the spiritual nourishment I've been receiving at St. Philip. However, I disagree with the Church's positions on things like women priests, married clergy, same-sex marriage, birth control, etc., which gives me pause. I feel strongly about equality, and in turn, my image of God is a God of love and equality, so it's hard to accept people in positions of authority saying women shouldn't be priests, gay relationships are sinful and same-sex marriage should be illegal, etc. And admitting all of that, I wonder if there's a place for me in the Church as an institution. I don't want to be excommunicated as soon as I'm confirmed.
Even though I've found a spiritual home and refuge in St. Philip, this exchange has reminded me that, in many ways, I'm still very much an outsider. When it comes to my friends, who are mostly atheist or practitioners of non-Christian religious traditions, I'm a bit of an anomaly being a practicing Catholic. And among my Catholic brothers and sisters who hold firmly to all the Church's teachings, I'm equally anomalous. Sometimes, I feel like I don't truly fit in anywhere. I'm not going to let that deter me from following the spiritual path I'm on, but it does make it a lonely journey sometimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment