I have a new policy...I am not letting
preconceived notions go unchallenged or bullies barge into my space any more. If you
are out there offering offense, I'm going to take it and respond in
an appropriate manner.
On Thursday I had an interaction with the latter at Target at
the Pharmacy – the woman in front of me was wearing an NRA t-shirt
that said in huge block letters on the back “KEEP CALM AND CARRY
GUNS.” I waited until she was finished and turned to leave and I
smiled brightly at her and said “What are the odds? An NRA activist
and one of the original 'Mad Moms' – that's not an insult, by the
way, it's pretty much the job description – being in line
together?”
She snarled at me, which I expected, so
I turned to the pharmacist and said “I don't know about you
but I sure will sleep better tonight knowing she's armed.”
She literally got to stomp off, red
face rising, humiliated, to the laughter of four or five people that
were all laughing at her. Fuck these people. They've invited
ridicule and mockery, and it's time to give it to them. I'm betting
the gun-fondler's don't have the balls to shoot me, so I'm going to
mock them. Openly.
On Friday night, something similar
happened on Facebook with the former. A friend in the real world and on Facebook
shared a post about the lesbian couple who was married in New York
and fired
from their jobs teaching at a Catholic school in the Archdiocese
of St. Louis after the school came into possession of their mortgage
application. He is gay, in a long term relationship, and righteously
pissed at the homophobia and discrimination of Catholic schools
toward perfectly qualified and capable teachers who have been
dismissed from teaching positions for being gay. I agree with him
there...I want the church to change and the sexual orientation of a
teacher has no bearing on their abilities in the classroom. I am too.
I have a daughter who is a lesbian and a teacher, she couldn't wait
to get out of Catholic school when she was a kid, and now she teaches
Montessori.
But then he asked a question that I
felt compelled to answer...He asked his Catholic friends how they
could continue to be Catholic.
I spent over an hour being civil – I
didn't flame or attack, even though I got attacked, because I didn't
have to, I was right. So I was methodical, Jesuitical even, and I
laid it out.
First of all, I don't think the school
had the right to fire them, that the evidence of wrongdoing it used
to dismiss them was “fruit of the poisonous tree” because I think
they have a Fourth Amendment civil rights violation claim; I believe
they should get their jobs back and there should be some sanction
against the Gladys fucking Kravitz who maliciously leaked the
document to the school, that they have a Fourth Amendment right to
expect privacy in their papers. I argued that tax returns and credit
scoring agencies provide information about where one works and how
much one makes; that there is no reason to contact the employer and
if privacy laws don't currently exist to protect such couples, they
need to be crafted, either by the state legislatures or the courts.
But just as the couple has Fourth
Amendment rights, the private schools that are operated by the
Catholic church have rights under the First Amendment, and this is
where the two bump up against one another. In the interest of
protecting everyone's rights, tougher privacy laws need to be enacted
while the courts sort out the validity of the competing claims. I
don't want anyone's right's trampled, not individuals, not the
Catholic church's, no one's. I also had the bad manners to point
out that no one is forced, past age eighteen anyway, to be a
Catholic, nor is anyone assigned a job teaching at a Catholic school.
It is a job one seeks, and enters into at will. It is us liberals
who are always going on at such length about the wall of separation
between church and state. Do we mean it, or not? Is it a cherished
value, or just an empty slogan? I know what it is for me, but I fear
that there are those who, like the gentleman last night, who denied
“attacking anyone” but how else to interpret “your beloved
church” – no derision tag needed – simply because I want the
Constitution applied evenly and fairly, to both individuals and
institutions.
That still wasn't good enough for one
of the folks in the comments thread. He asserted (wrongly) that
individual parishes aren't removed from the larger church, and
demanded to know how I could continue to be a Catholic when the
organization is homophobic. I answered his question a couple of
times, but he refused to apply any critical thinking skills to the
answers I was so thoughtfully typing out...again, without using any
curse words!
I pointed out that yes, we were pretty
independent from Rome, and that “the Church” as he put it had
made more tolerant statements than I ever thought I would hear, and
that the Pope had more influence over Catholics in KC than the
Archbishop of St. Louis does, in fact, on more than one occasion I've
heard the Priest on Sunday say something at the Archbishop's expense
from the altar. There is no love lost between KC and St. Louis.
He countered that parishes were not
independent of the larger institution (we had already established
that he is not a Catholic) so I explained that he was wrong about
this, but let's assume for a moment that he was right – the larger
institution has expressed tolerance – Who am I to Judge? – That's
tolerance. That's the tolerance of Christ's emissary. It's the
Archbishop of St. Louis who is the heretic.
The church is a holdover from medieval
times, and each Bishopric is, essentially, a fully-functioning
Feifdom, and what happened in St. Louis should have no bearing on
what is happening in my parish. That is why Redemptorist Priests in
Kansas City say derisive things about the Archbishop of Saint Louis
as part of their homily. Not only is each Bishopric a Feifdom unto
itself, each Holy Order has a church home. The Redemptorists in
Kansas City have called Our Lady of Perpetual Help home since the
place was nothin' but stockyards and whorehouses, actually acting on
those Corporal Works of Mercy, and I could not, in good conscience,
say nothing while they were unfairly maligned.
I said I had answered his question a
couple of times, but I would give it another shot, and be explicit.
I explained that I'm a “Liberation Theology” social justice
Catholic, that I am a member of the organization that was the ONLY
resistance to right-wing fascists in Central America in the 70s and
80s. I am a member of the organization that has taught 90% of the
people who are literate on the face of the Earth how to read.
I am a member of the organization that delivers more healthcare to
more poor people without asking for payment than any other.
I explained that I am a member of a
parish that is liberal and welcoming of gay people and operates a
social service agency, that I see the good every day because it is
lined up waiting for the doors to open. I support the food bank. I
support the clothing bank. I support the adult literacy classes. I
support the English classes for adults. I support the assistance
people can get with rent and utilities. I support the help with
medical and dental care that people are able to get through the
social service agency that the parish where I attend weekly mass
operates.
I also pointed out that by myself, I am
a lone ant and not very effective, but with a whole bunch of other
ants, we can pick an elephant carcass clean in mere minutes, so I had
decided, with the advent of this Pope, to return to church and throw
my lot back in with a whole bunch of other Social Justice Catholics.
I got a two-letter response back: “ok.”
I went back this morning to offer that I took Honors Civics I & II and American Government
from Jesuit lawyers, but the post was gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment