Queer Spirituality

Yesterday I dipped into two books, and found ideas that amplified  each other with powerful effect, especially in the current context of advances for marriage equality and the bishops' opposition. "Take Back the Word" (ed Robert Goss) is a compilation of writings on Scripture designed to take us as queer Christians beyond battles with the "texts of terror", to an approach more in keeping with what it should be, a source of inspiration and value in our lives.  "Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body " (ed Gerard Loughlin) is a broader and more ambitious compilation, of writing on a range of dimensions of faith from a queer perspective.

undermined and washed away in the deeper waters of the Christian symbolic, for insofar as as women are members of the body, they too are called to be Christ to others; so that they too must also act as "groom" and "husband"; to the "bride" and "wife" of the other, whether it is to a man or woman.  For it cannot be said that within the community only men are called to love as Christ does."

Loughlin's reading of the text had transformed it into a queer text. The very incongruity of this reading with the "original" reading is enough to stimulate laughter. I find it funny that this passage should be read so often and do solemnly at weddings, the great ceremony of heteropatriarchy.

-Stuart, Camping Around the Canon, in Goss "Take Back the Word"

The threat posed by gays and lesbians to family and society is often proclaimed by men - named "fathers"- who have vowed never to to beget children. The pope lives in a household of such men - a veritable palace of "eunuchs"for Christ  - that reproduces itself by persuading others not to procreate. Why us the refusal of fecundity - the celibate lifestyle - not also a threat to family and society?

Goss, Robert (ed): Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible

Loughlin, Gerard (ed): Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body (BBPG)

“Remember: Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions.” 

“Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”

Furthermore, a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda, which thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of "equal rights," "tolerance," "who am I to judge?," etc.

"It is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

I urge all of the Catholic faithful to treat homosexuals with love, understanding, and respect.

Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”

By insisting on the spurious claim of an obligation to oppose all forms of legal recognition, he is including civil unions – but civil unions are just that, legal contracts to provide some protections to the partners in a relationship. They are not about sexual relationships – partners wanting a sexual relationship can (and do) have one without requiring a contract to authorize it. And liturgical recognition of same sex unions has a long tradition in the church, as amply demonstrated by both John Boswell and Alan Bray . To this day, there are echoes of these same –sex unions in the modern Mass, with the paired names of Felicity and Perpetua, Phillip and Bartholomew incorporated into the Eucharistic prayer – just as they were listed in the liturgies for same sex unions. (No, these were not “comparable” to modern marriage – but nor are modern civil unions, and nor were the the early heterosexual marriages comparable to modern marriage.) To the cynics who insist that in practice, civil unions are about sex, I reply that they need not be. In the early church, many saintly married couples committed themselves to voluntary virginity, even within marriage. In the nineteenth century, Cardinal John Newman, who will be beatified next month, was famed for the intensity of his (celibate) love for his dear friend Ambrose St John, even to the extent of insisting on being buried with him in a shared grave “for all eternity”. For any Catholic of homosexual orientation wishing to live strictly within orthodox teaching, which clearly states that the homosexual “condition” is not sinful, this celibate emotional bond might well make a fitting model of emotional friendship. If two such people chose to share their lives together, in chastity, is it in any way conceivable that there is a “moral obligation” to oppose legal protection for their relationship?

I'm a little slow in noting this, but last week marked three months since then Cardinal Schonborn, cardinal archbishop of Vienna, suggested that it might be time for the Church to rethink its stance on homosexual relationships, considering the quality of the relationships, rather than simply the "acts", which is the sole focus of the Vatican document. "Homosexualitatis Problema" ("HP"). This seemingly obvious, eminently rational suggestion is nevertheless so out of kilter with the official stance embodied in HP that I have been waiting and watching carefully for any sign of refutation or repudiation, but there has still not been anything of the sort.

Cardinal Schonborn has had a meeting with Pope Benedict, specifically to discuss his criticisms of the curia and Cardinal Sodano, which had been made on the same day as the observations on homosexuality and divorce - but there his been no indication that the issues around sexual morality were even discussed.

Where I was expecting to find voices from within the Vatican, or from diocesan bishops, raised against Schonborn's statements, I have still not seen reports of even a single bishop openly disagreeing - and I have been looking. Instead, in the months since his original remarks in Vienna, I have read reports of three bishops who have said much the same thing: Bishop Francis Quinn, (California), Bishop Januario Torgal Ferreira (Portugal), and Bishop Willie  Walsh (Ireland).

There are other signs of a bubbling movement towards reform. Just this  morning, my email inbox brought me news of two developments. The Irish Times last week reported on a new movement for reform launched by a group of Irish priests, while my own local bishop, Kiearan Conroy of Arundel & Brighton, is reported in the Catholic Herald to have "criticized" Pope Benedict's new council to re-evangelize the West. (I will have more on both of these later. Meanwhile, there are also increasing signs of open defiance of authority, from parishes like St Mary's Brisbane, or St Stephen's Minneapolis, or the "faith community" of Mary Magdalene in San Diego, simply going their own way; to the Womenpriests Movement simply ignoring the official ban on ordaining women, and the accompanying threats/ promises of excommunication; or the longer established groups of Catholics not acknowledging the authority of Rome, which are now attracting increasing attention.

At the same time. to judge by the direct actions and statements of the Vatican, you would see a clampdown on dissent  and a tightening of central authority, most clearly exemplified in the recent document which on the one hand promises automatic excommunication for those even "assisting" in women's ordination, and on the other encouraging local bishops to apply their own strict disciplinary measures to control dissenters.

What on earth is going on?

Once again, I recall my time in South Africa, and specifically the final 10 years before Mandela was released and apartheid brushed aside. There are remarkable parallels, which leave me more convinced than ever that fundamental reform of the Catholic Church is surely on the way: only one question remains to be answered.

On the other, it is equally clearly an expression of heterosexual love -at least as known and commonly published today.( There is an out of print book which argues that the earliest texts described two men, and that one set of pronouns was altered by later editors. For an account of this, see the Wild Reed on "The Bible's Gay Love Poem". However, I have not seen authoritative support for this view elsewhere, and for today I shall stick with the better known version. )   

Christopher King, writing in “Take Back the Word”, has another approach, which strikes me as instructive and useful. (“A Love as Fierce as Death: Reclaiming the Song of Songs for Queer Lovers”). The starting point for his reading, which sets it apart from others and makes it come alive for me, is that he recognises in the Song much more than just  the expression of love, but its fuller story.

“I am black and  beautiful,
O daughters of Jerusalem” (1:5)

The Shulamite recognizes that because of her relationship to the Beloved, she has become the subject of a discourse that intensifies her experience of marginality. Having become merely an outsider, she has become a taboo person.

“Making their rounds in the city,
the sentinels found me;
they beat me, they wounded me,
they took away my mantle
those sentinels of the walls” (5:7)

The very men who ought to protect the Shulamite have savagely attacked her. Not only have they thrashed , bruised and perhaps raped her, they have also stolen her outer garment, exposing her body to the physical elements, and more seriously, unveiling her shame to the elemental forces of public scorn.

My beloved is mine and I am his
he pastures his flock among he lilies (2:16)

I am my beloved’s and he is mine
he pastures his flock among he lilies. (6.3) 

“We need to out-evangelize the evangelists!”

The South African satirist Pieter-Dirk Uys built a highly successful stage career by making fun of South African politicians, other public figures, and a range of South African character stereotypes.  Especially clever were his takes on then President PW Botha, Bishop Desmond Tutu,  the Johannesburg kugel (the local counterpart to a New York Jewish Princess) - and his wonderful glamorous, glamorous alter-ego, Evita Bezuidenhout, Ambassadress to the "homeland" of Baphetikosweti, whose "independence " was as fictitious as its own existence.

"The Honourable Evita Bezuidenhout, (aka Pieter-Dirk Uys)"

With skilled mimicry, quick change wizardry, and sharply pointed scripts, Uys kept us laughing at ourselves as well as our "leaders" through the darkest days of apartheid, and beyond. When asked about his success, he always declined credit for his clever scripts. He did not need to write them, he said- just to listen to the news. His characters wrote their lines themselves.

In that spirit, I fondly recall one specific politician from the bad old days who fed me a particularly good line, which I heard live in a radio interview. This man, a deputy minister in the government, was being asked about the death penalty, which of course he fully supported. The interviewer wanted more, and asked about the alternatives - wouldn't rehabilitation of offenders be more humane? "No, " came the firm and clear reply. "We must have the death penalty. Rehabilitation can come later."