Irreconcilable Differences

I watched a few of the early seasons of American Idol, and while I never much cared for those initial episodes in which the patently untalented subjected themselves to the judges’ merciless wrath, I did appreciate Simon Cowell’s recurring observation that most of those earnest losers truly did not realize how bad at singing they were.

“Do you not hear yourself?” Cowell would half-rhetorically ask them, incredulous that these cretins would drain his time, and their dignity, with their ear-splitting, tone-deaf wails.  Surely their lack of self-awareness could not be as profound as all that, could it?

I thought of this when I read a recent statement from Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York and perhaps the most prominent Catholic clergyman in the United States, about his church’s attitude toward gays.

“We’ve got to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people,” said Dolan.  “And I admit, we haven’t been too good at that.”

Sounds promising so far.  And how does the cardinal propose the Church rectify its undeniable “gay problem”?  By endorsing same-sex marriage?


Marriage, said Dolan, is and ought to be defined as “one man, one woman, forever, to bring about new life.”

Alright.  How about by at least rejecting the famous injunction in Leviticus to “not lie with a male as with a woman” because “it is an abomination,” and the promise, two chapters later, that those who do “shall surely be put to death”?


“I think that we can’t tamper with what God has revealed,” Dolan explained.  (He was not responding specifically about the Bible verses in question, but such an answer must necessarily include them.)

OK, I give up.  What is the proper means for the Catholic Church to curry favor with the world’s gay community?

Addressing gay Catholics who would profess love for their mother church, Dolan expounded:  “I love you, too.  And God loves you.  And you are made in God’s image and likeness.  And we want your happiness.  But — and you’re entitled to friendship.  But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness — especially when it comes to sexual love — is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally.”

I see.  We are undeserving of the rights and means of pursuing happiness that you enjoy, but we needn’t fret because you like us anyway.

I gotta say, the archbishop sure knows how to make a guy feel welcomed.

It is much like Tina Fey said, playing Sarah Palin in the Saturday Night Live version of the 2008 vice presidential debate:  “Don’t think I don’t tolerate gay people, because I do.  I tolerate them with all my heart.”

In their assertions that God loves me, on the one hand, but that I am nonetheless a moral pariah on the other, I wonder (like Simon Cowell) whether Dolan and his ilk can truly hear what they are saying, and whether they understand how fantastically patronizing it sounds.

Of course, a very pronounced parallel to the Church’s gay problem can be seen in the Republican Party’s Hispanic problem here in the States.

Like the Church with gays, the GOP finds itself manifestly distrusted by a disproportionate number of Hispanic voters, who consider the party uninterested, if not outright hostile, to the issues they care most about—particularly what to do about illegal immigrants.

While many Republican congresspersons have implored the party to try harder to earn Hispanics’ support by being more accommodating, they have yet to square the trust circle, thanks to their demurral in changing the policies that fostered this distrust in the first place.

In viewing its mission to win over Hispanic voters as a simple PR problem, the GOP is averting its eyes to the truth of the matter, which is that until it changes its actual views—not merely adjusting the presentation of them—its interests will remain irreconcilable with Hispanics’ interests.

So it is with the Catholic Church.  So long as it clings to a theology that dismisses homosexuals as inherently inferior to heterosexuals, any attempts at reconciliation will rightly be dismissed as hollow, facile and just the slightest bit insulting.

Cardinal Dolan and his church have a choice.  They can sincerely welcome their gay brothers and sisters into the fold, or they can retain a doctrine that regards such folks as members of a lower, morally wanting class.  They cannot have both.


One thought on “Irreconcilable Differences

  1. Part of being involved with a fringe group (or ideology) is recognizing that your views are rejected by most of society. You simply must accept the fact that you are not a part of mainstream society, and its institutions have every right to treat you as such. You still have your rights as a citizen, but the Catholic Church, an ever-dwindling presence in this mainstream society, does not agree with your alternative lifestyle. What’s all the fuss about?

    Be it a choice or a natural occurrence, it is nonetheless disagreeable to members of the Catholic faith. The church has been pigeonholed into taking the ‘do not condemn, do not condone’ approach as the party line, but as you correctly deduce, your lifestyle is firmly not accepted. It’s just not something that the Church wants to get behind (pun strongly intended, hehe).

    Fringe groups have been treated as dangerous by governments throughout history for one important reason: Members’ primary loyalty is with the group first, and the government second, if at all. For reasons that will forever be debated (Illuminati !!1!!!one!1!), the public opinion on homosexuality has quickly changed from ‘abhorrent’ in the 50s and 60s to ‘fun and cool’ today. Shouldn’t that be enough?

    If it were up to me you would have all the tax benefits and hospital visitation rights you wanted and then some. I’d even give you guys (and gals!) free tickets to Grease every weekend if you’d sign a written agreement that you’ll never change your Facebook profile picture to one of those cute pink and red equal signs ever again. Here’s the best part – I’d pay for it by levying extra taxes on Christians only! After all, those crazy Bible thumpers hate you guys (and gals!). What’s that? Being gay is punishable by death in Muslim countries? Darn. Well you guys (and gals!) never complain about them. Maybe you’re racists. You don’t stick up for the rights of gays in Muslim countries because they’re brown! I can’t believe the intolerance of the gay community, it sickens me.

    As usual, though, give them and inch and they take a mile. I have the feeling that ‘progress’ won’t stop until this fringe belief (previously characterized as a mental disorder by the American Psychological Association as recently as 1973) is in our children’s health classes.

    Once both real-acceptable-legitimate-marriage and super-fun-cool-fabulous-gay-marriage are acceptable, you’ll have a bigger problem though: Why are only 5% of people inclined toward to this super-fabulous-fun-cool-awesome-gay-marriage thing? If it is not a choice, then why are people who are molested more likely to be gay?* Why are there more gay men than women?** If you can explain that one to a child, then you have my blessing. If not, continue existing on the ideological fringe of society, constantly being reminded that you will fail at the most important biological imperative.

    (Yes it’s wiki answers, no I don’t care)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s