Sorry, but cut the crap

[Progo35]

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, while not reflective of the overall gay community, should be harshly criticized for what they did recently at a Catholic church service. I have NO sympathy for these people AT ALL. It is NOT OKAY to mock the Catholic Church in a PRIVATE CHURCH SERVICE ON CHURCH PROPERTY because of its stance on homosexuality. (I use the word homosexual because I don't think that the Church's doctrines takes LGBT orientation into account: the question of orientation and its complexities aren't, I think, what the church is against or is thinking about, it is the act which their interpretation of the Bible indicates is wrong, which is why I'm making that distinction, even though the stance impacts LGBT individuals).

If someone went into a mosque or synogague dressed in a manner obviously intended to mock the congregants' beliefs, hate crime charges would need to be brought against the guilty parties. I would support that. But when I support hate crime legislation, as I do, I expect it to be applied equally. And, I expect people who ask or demand acceptance from theological organizations like the Catholic church to show the same respect they would want to that church.

The worst travesties are that 1) These individuals have harmed the image of gay community in the eyes of Christians severely, and 2) have contributed to a hateful climate that they themselves say is wrong. In my opinion, people like this are using the gay community to promote anti Catholic and anti religious rhetoric. The gay community and its allies should be livid at this group for the damage it has done to LGBT-religious relations and for the degradation they committed against the Catholic church as an act of intolerance that the LGBT community should be against in principle.

Sorry about the capital letters, but the harm this has done to the LGBT community and these individuals' attempts to promote hate against the Catholic community anger me. Intolerance is intolerance, hate is hate, and it is not acceptable against either group.

[antonyh]

“I must apologize”

Statement released Oct. 11 by Archdiocese of San Francisco regarding archbishop giving communion to two “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence”

Below is Archbishop George H. Niederauer's column for the Oct. 19 issue of Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper that is mailed to 85,000 households. This statement was provided to California Catholic Daily by Maurice E. Healy, director of archdiocesan communications.

A recent event that greatly concerns me needs some additional explanation -- and with it an apology.

On Sunday, October 7, 2007, I celebrated Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Parish here in San Francisco, during my first visit there. The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. I noticed no demonstration, no protest, no disruption
of the Eucharist.

At Communion time, toward the end of the line, two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. As I recall one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland. I did not recognize either of them as wearing mock religious garb.

Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. My predecessors,
Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop John Quinn, have both denounced this group's abuse of sacred things many times in the past. Only last year, I instructed the Administrator of Most Holy Redeemer Parish to cancel the group's use of the hall on the parish grounds, once I became aware of it.

In the year and a half since I arrived in San Francisco, there have been several instances of offensive attacks on Catholic faith and devotional life. Only two weeks ago Catholic San Francisco carried my remarks condemning the derisive use of the image of the Last Supper on a poster printed by another local group.

Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me.

After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake.

I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so.

The manner of dress and public comportment of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is deeply offensive to women religious and to the witness of holiness and Christian service that women religious have offered to the Church and to the world for centuries. The citizens of San Francisco have ample reason to be grateful to women religious for their unfailing support of those most in need, and to be deeply offended when that service is belittled so outrageously and offensively.

Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them.

Therefore I conclude that the presence of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the Mass on October 7th was intended as a provocative gesture. In that moment I failed to recognize it as such, and for that, as I have said, I must apologize.

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=539c6e14-5a30-491e-9d2d-ef4351486eb8

http://www.renewamerica.us/images/columns/071011abbott.jpg

[antonyh]

I have a hunch that Jesus would have given the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence communion as well. He then would have told all the people in the Catholic church that opposed his mercy:

"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have committed the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith; these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter but within are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind guide, Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and of the platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,! for ye are indeed like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye appear outwardly righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

Associating a visit by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence with a hate crimes is absurd. Hate crimes are violent in nature.

[Progo35]

Given the issue, yes, I can agree. Jesus might have given them communion. So, it's not that act that I am predominantly concerned about. But, I think you and I will disagree on the hate crimes thing. To me, it's like the KKK marching through a Jewish neigborhood. They hate Jews. The SFPI hate catholics. So, according to the ACLU, the KKK has the "right" to march through that neighborhood, and perhaps the SFPI had the "right" to attend the church service. It was the purpose of their visit, which was to defame and mock the church, which makes it wrong, not the fact that they were there.

But, in terms of hypocrisy, I would say that the SFPI are the ones who are hypocrites. They decry hate speech or displays against LGBT individuals, as they should, but they spew out hateful rhetoric against the Catholic church. The Catholic church shouldn't have to change its beliefs to be respected by the members of SFPI, if true tolerance from the church is what such groups seek.

[antonyh]

Do the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence hate Catholics or do they hate the oppression that comes out of the Catholic church?

You should read the site...the Sisters have done some pretty impressive work:
http://thesisters.org/index.html

Here is why the Catholic Church hates them:

1987
The Sisters went all out to greet the Pope during his visit in 1987. While many in the city were not pleased to see him, we were beside ourselves. We rolled out the red carpet in his honor and held a full-on exorcism in Union Square. That, and a few other actions and antics, landed us the prestigious honor of being placed on the Papal List of Heretics. (Way to go gals!) The Seattle Sisters start their ministry.

[keltic63]

Do the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence hate Catholics or do they hate the oppression that comes out of the Catholic church?

You should read the site...the Sisters have done some pretty impressive work:
http://thesisters.org/index.html

Here is why the Catholic Church hates them:

1987
The Sisters went all out to greet the Pope during his visit in 1987. While many in the city were not pleased to see him, we were beside ourselves. We rolled out the red carpet in his honor and held a full-on exorcism in Union Square. That, and a few other actions and antics, landed us the prestigious honor of being placed on the Papal List of Heretics. (Way to go gals!) The Seattle Sisters start their ministry.

Much like Soulforce, the methods are often called into question, but after reading their history, and reading about their mission, http://thesisters.org/sistory.html I'd hardly call them a hate group.

[antonyh]

Much like Soulforce, the methods are often called into question, but after reading their history, and reading about their mission, http://thesisters.org/sistory.html I'd hardly call them a hate group.

So if you were to join the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, what would your name be?

I've decided that I'd be Sister Magnolia Fairbottom :lol:

[Pablo Rafael]

Not knowing anything about this particular group I won't comment specifically.

However, I believe that people need to be respectful of others. When we deal with those who we oppose us we still can do so with respect out of an attitude of love. I am convinced that very few people are ever convinced of something because they are engaged in a confrontation. People are convinced when those who love them lead them to see things in a new way.

I was opposed to anything gay for many years because the image that I saw of gay people in the media was overwhelmingly negative. (As always the most outrageous things are media-worthy.) I knew that I did not want to be associated with that group.

The sharp contrast to that is the people on these forums. If there is a kinder, more loving group, I have not found it. The people here help make a good name for LGBT people.

Love and respect will always triumph over force and disrespect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against injustice, but we should always be certain that our opposition has the purpose of spreading love to the world. Love is not an easy path, but it is the only one that is ever ultimately worthwhile.

Pablo

[antonyh]

Not knowing anything about this particular group I won't comment specifically.

However, I believe that people need to be respectful of others. When we deal with those who we oppose us we still can do so with respect out of an attitude of love. I am convinced that very few people are ever convinced of something because they are engaged in a confrontation. People are convinced when those who love them lead them to see things in a new way.

I was opposed to anything gay for many years because the image that I saw of gay people in the media was overwhelmingly negative. (As always the most outrageous things are media-worthy.) I knew that I did not want to be associated with that group.

The sharp contrast to that is the people on these forums. If there is a kinder, more loving group, I have not found it. The people here help make a good name for LGBT people.

Love and respect will always triumph over force and disrespect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against injustice, but we should always be certain that our opposition has the purpose of spreading love to the world. Love is not an easy path, but it is the only one that is ever ultimately worthwhile.

Pablo

Was it respectful when a gay couple attended Mass at Holy Name Cathedral three months ago here in Chicago and were denied communion by the Priest in front of the whole congregation because he knew they were gay?

[keltic63]

So if you were to join the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, what would your name be?

I've decided that I'd be Sister Magnolia Fairbottom :lol:

perhaps I'd have to be Sister Lena GensterMann

[keltic63]

Think "lightening rod"

ooooh, that can be your nun name! Sister Davida, Holder of the Lightning Rod :lol:

[antonyh]

ooooh, that can be your nun name! Sister Davida, Holder of the Lightning Rod :lol:

LOL, that is rich :lol::pray:

[kara speltz]

So while I am NOT going to dress like a nun and adopt a ridiculous name for the sake of the cause... I am not going to criticize those who do because they have ALWAYS played a critical role in this movement.

Does that make sense? The catholic church has lasted for nearly two millenia... it can take a little ribbing. Really. Its very robust.

.

I live in the Bay Area, and actually have met a number of the "Sisters." I am also Catholic. I agree with u-dog, it seems to me there's nothing wrong with a little comic relief when it comes to the Catholic Church. Do I wish that they hadn't attended Mass and received communion - yea, I'll have to acknowledge that. I take Eucharist very seriously. If you're not Catholic, you may not fully comprehend why this touches us so deeply. Catholics believe that Jesus is fully present in the bread and the wine.

But I also support the Sisters, in their good works and their sense of comic relief to some of the pompous and hypocritical actions of the hierarchey.

So while I may wish they hadn't attended the Mass and received communion, I'm not about to condemn them either. I fully believe that it is not the role of any priest to determine who should be given Eucharist. I've been refused Eucharist and I can tell you that it is an extremely painful experience; and surely not what Jesus would do.

Kara

[dewdrop_world]

The SFPI hate catholics.

What?

I think you seriously misunderstand what the group is about.

I would also say, the degree to which a religion takes itself so seriously that it perceives attack in any criticism is the same degree to which that religion has become divorced from Spirit and from God. The same could be said of individual believers.

The Japanese Zen saying is "If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him" -- which doesn't mean literally that a person should be killed. It's saying just that too much reverence for representations of God nature that are outside yourself causes you to neglect your own spirit, which in turn makes your faith easily shaken, brittle and defensive.

I also think it's hilarious that the priest had to say he "didn't recognize" what was going on. If you're a Catholic living in the Bay area who has never heard of the Sisters, you must be living under a rock. I think it's possible that he knew exactly who they were, gave them communion to make a point, and then have to come up with cover story to keep from getting in trouble with our dear Papa Ratzi.

Many priests are appalled at the state of the Catholic Church but can't say so outright.

James

[antonyh]

I would also say, the degree to which a religion takes itself so seriously that it perceives attack in any criticism is the same degree to which that religion has become divorced from Spirit and from God. The same could be said of individual believers.

The Japanese Zen saying is "If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him" -- which doesn't mean literally that a person should be killed. It's saying just that too much reverence for representations of God nature that are outside yourself causes you to neglect your own spirit, which in turn makes your faith easily shaken, brittle and defensive.

I've always been impressed with that aspect of Buddhism, that the teachings are simply a raft to cross the river to enlightenment. It is the transformation that is important, not making an idol out of the teachings.

[keltic63]

It is unclear to me that the 2 sisters who received communion are or are not Catholic. Does the article say for sure?

antonyh, Is the picture of the 2 nuns in your post taken at the service in question? How could the ArchBishop not notice that they are in drag and not dressed in faux religious garb?

[RedneckDyke]

Heaven forfend, maybe the priest should have gone OUTSIDE to where the rest of the protesters probably were and served communion to the whole lot of them. People would not have to cause a ruckus in the church house if the CHURCH would go to Pride gatherings and serve communion in love to every drag queen, leather daddy, bear, lipstick femme, cowboy dyke, or collared submissive that was there and wanted to take communion.

[Alecto]

In fairness, you talk about "what happened recently", but don't really tell us what happened recently. To what are you referring?

[Zerbie]

Heaven forfend, maybe the priest should have gone OUTSIDE to where the rest of the protesters probably were and served communion to the whole lot of them. People would not have to cause a ruckus in the church house if the CHURCH would go to Pride gatherings and serve communion in love to every drag queen, leather daddy, bear, lipstick femme, cowboy dyke, or collared submissive that was there and wanted to take communion.

Thank you for saying that. I was just wishing I were a priest so I could do just that. :)

[antonyh]

It is unclear to me that the 2 sisters who received communion are or are not Catholic. Does the article say for sure?

antonyh, Is the picture of the 2 nuns in your post taken at the service in question? How could the ArchBishop not notice that they are in drag and not dressed in faux religious garb?

Yes, that is the picture of the two Sisters at the service in question.

[Progo35]

By recently, i mean in the last few weeks.

I am sure that their misson is the confront bigotry, but as Pablo said, they don't need to do it with disrespect. And, I don't think that it is appopriate for the gay community to hold a protest outside a Catholic church for no specific reason. It wasn't like that Church's sermon was on homosexuality that day or that the church was doing anything in respect to gay rights.

I did get this information from Bill O'Reilly's talk show, who I've sensed is not popular around here, but I also did independent research via the internet and several LGBT newspapers talked about it and repeated the same events that OR did, so it is definitely true.

Moreover, it has been reported that at the Folsom Street Fair, people were handing out sex toys that were shaped like the Pope and the Virgin mary. They might as well have been handing out sex toys shaped like the Koran or the Menorah. Those actions are NOT OKAY, regardless of their motivations. As a Christian, I expect people who expect tolerance from my to treat me and my religious observance with tolerance. Otherwise, they are hypocrites. No one is ever going to be perfect and we will inevitably offend each other without meaning to from time to time. So, we should cut each other some slack. But, this was not an accident and it was, to me, hateful. It doesn't matter what the hateful thing was intended to accomplish. If that behavior is to be excused for its motivations, then the Catholic Church should certainly be excused by the gay community on the same principle.

[scott snedeker]

So if you were to join the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, what would your name be?

I've decided that I'd be Sister Magnolia Fairbottom :lol:

I Think I would be Sister Sarah Serenity of the Perpetual Puddle:eek::D

[antonyh]

I Think I would be Sister Sarah Serenity of the Perpetual Puddle:eek::D

:lol: It looks like the sisters had some origins in the Radical Fairies. So now we have:

Sister Magnolia Fairbottom (moi)
Sister Lena GensterMann
Sister Davida, Holder of the Lightning Rod
Sister Sarah Serenity of the Perpetual Puddle

We can start a Soulforce chapter of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence!

[antonyh]

Moreover, it has been reported that at the Folsom Street Fair, people were handing out sex toys that were shaped like the Pope and the Virgin mary.

I can't even visualize what a sex toy shaped like the Pope or Virgin Mary would look like or how they would work...are you sure you're not making this up?

[scott snedeker]

I can't even visualize what a sex toy shaped like the Pope or Virgin Mary would look like or how they would work...are you sure you're not making this up?

My dear Adrain was at the Folsom street fair. From his description, these toys were tame compared to some of the other outrageousness that went on, :lol::lol:

Sister Magnolia, I fear that I have no doubt that it's true :eek:


I'm only sorry that I missed it! :mad::D:cool:

[antonyh]

My dear Adrain was at the Folsom street fair. From his description, these toys were tame compared to some of the other outrageousness that went on, :lol::lol:

Sister Magnolia, I fear that I have no doubt that it's true :eek:


I'm only sorry that I missed it! :mad::D:cool:

Ah, Sister Sarah, my innocence once again betrays me :pray:

[Zerbie]

I can't even visualize what a sex toy shaped like the Pope or Virgin Mary would look like or how they would work...are you sure you're not making this up?

Ew. Well, I can picture that, but would definitely be turned off by them.

[Alecto]

By recently, i mean in the last few weeks.

I am sure that their misson is the confront bigotry, but as Pablo said, they don't need to do it with disrespect. And, I don't think that it is appopriate for the gay community to hold a protest outside a Catholic church for no specific reason. It wasn't like that Church's sermon was on homosexuality that day or that the church was doing anything in respect to gay rights.

I did get this information from Bill O'Reilly's talk show, who I've sensed is not popular around here, but I also did independent research via the internet and several LGBT newspapers talked about it and repeated the same events that OR did, so it is definitely true.

Moreover, it has been reported that at the Folsom Street Fair, people were handing out sex toys that were shaped like the Pope and the Virgin mary. They might as well have been handing out sex toys shaped like the Koran or the Menorah. Those actions are NOT OKAY, regardless of their motivations. As a Christian, I expect people who expect tolerance from my to treat me and my religious observance with tolerance. Otherwise, they are hypocrites. No one is ever going to be perfect and we will inevitably offend each other without meaning to from time to time. So, we should cut each other some slack. But, this was not an accident and it was, to me, hateful. It doesn't matter what the hateful thing was intended to accomplish. If that behavior is to be excused for its motivations, then the Catholic Church should certainly be excused by the gay community on the same principle.


Ok, so I'm still unclear as to what happened that you're upset about. A protest was held outside of a church? If it were me, I'd hold it outside of a church in the Vatican instead, because most of the spiritual violence against GLBT folks has its origins there. Particularly with this pope. And I see nothing wrong with that.

I don't know that the methodology of the protest, given the nature of it, is perfectly designed to inspire other Catholics to really think about the policies and doctrines in question, but it's not my protest and not my decision. As for the Folsom Street bit, if I recall, that's not even specifically a "gay" thing. So why are straight people so disrespectful of the catholic church? (And, have we looked into just who it is that manufactures these sex toys?)

I no longer consider myself Catholic. While I think that Soulforce generally does good work, I'm personally of the opinion that it's not my place to really even join in a discussion about someone else's religious beliefs. That said, I don't really know what you're trying to get at with this thread. It's coming across to me as "OMG gay people are being terrible to the church, so I shouldn't have to be nice to gay people". Which is generalizing, stereotyping, dehumanizing to say that because some members of group X act a certain way, all members of group X are "hypocrites".

[antonyh]

Sister Davida is not a catholic and has no desire to play one on TV ... in drag. And while I have many issues with the RCC and its ministry in the world I don't have a lot of energy for kicking them around. Seems to me like we've managed to hi-jack Meghan's thread.

I'm not sure we've hi-jacked Meghan's thread. Instead of dealing directly with the blatant statements that the Catholic church should be tolerated in their long history of spiritual oppression of the LGBT community...well we're acting out like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

[Progo35]

I'm not sure we've hi-jacked Meghan's thread. Instead of dealing directly with the blatant statements that the Catholic church should be tolerated in their long history of spiritual oppression of the LGBT community...well we're acting out like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
Antonyh:

I think it's important to say that I'm not intending to attack you when I reply, I'm concerned that it might come off that way. But, that's fine with me that your perspective on the sister's actions is different then mine.

Nevertheless, I have to say: Folsom St. Fair was DEFINITELY a gay/LGBT event. And, that's fine. In fact, I would think that an event of this nature would give gay people the opportunity to show that many different people are LGBT and the fact that being LGBT doesn't mean that one supports complete moral relativism, which is what media coverage of many LGBT events has indicated. This, in my opinion, is at least half the fault of the people doing such outrageous things as dancing around half naked in the street, imitating sex acts, etc. I don't want to see ANYONE doing that in public, gay, straight, or whatever. That is the reason that I and the people I know don't normally attend huge functions that attract a crowd, such as Times Square on News Years Eve, Mardi Gras, or Salem in Haloween. I'm not saying that it is wrong to attend these functions or that they are offensive, but most Christians I know avoid any gathering where they know that there might be excessive obscenity.

My point in posting this information is twofold:

a) This will help kill efforts to reconcile the LGBT and religious communities. It is not fair to expect Christians and Catholics to embrace the mockery of their faith. If Catholics were not angered by this, they would all literally be saints or enablers, either or.

b) This contributes to the double-standard argument that some Christians have felt compelled to make against new hate crime laws: if we're going to have hate crime laws, they shouldn't be reserved only for LGBT, Jewish, African American and other recognized minorities. A hate crime needs to be defined as defamation motivated by hatred of a particular group or its beliefs, and Christians need to be included in that protection. When society accepts what the SOPI did, it essentially says: "I'm against defaming the minorities that are trendy to defend, but I'm fine with defaming Catholics because they did it first, and it is wrong for them to maintain the traditional interpretation of the Bible even if they have made a good faith decision to do so." For me, this causes doubts about such individuals' understanding of what diversity and acceptance means, and I wonder if the same people would encourage racial diversity if it hadn't already gained ground through the blood and sweat of its advocates. And, getting back to the double standard argument, it ultimately hurts the gay community by creating polarization between Christians and the LGBT community. It is my impression that many Christians who would otherwise support the LGBT community don't do so because they are under the impression that LGBT groups are in the business of promoting promiscuity, immorality, etc. Stunts like what the SOPI pulled contribute to that impression.

3) It is hypocritical. In one does not want to be mocked, then one should not mock others that don't necessarily have anything to do with what they're protesting. If one is truly trying to live like Christ, then they should honor the second greatest commandment of doing unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Jesus was harsh with religious people who were hypocrites, but I think it's extremely unfair to label everyone who has a conservative belief regarding homosexuality (again, being used as a technical term, as I don't think that this belief in itself necessarily takes the complexities of LGBT orientation into account) is a hypocrite deserving of public ridicule.

I know that its a different issue, but I would be LIVID if I had worked my butt off to build understanding between the disabled community and academia and then a disability rights group showed up at a private (not open to the community) college function wearing costumes that openly mocked the profs at that college. Why? Because it would make those profs angry and promote the message that the disability community isn't interested in respect, they only care about their message, no matter how it is delivered. If people took disability rights and used it as a platform to perform outrageous acts of disrespect against others, I'd feel used and degraded. Of course, there are disability groups that do just that in respect to certain issues, but they, also, are wrong. Organizations like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence belong at educatioal and public forums discussing the issues at hand, not in a church sanctuary taking communion and then laughing about it.

Moreover, I take issue with this group mocking nuns, a group of people who choose to devote their entire lives to a simplicity, humility and service to others. This, in my opinion, takes one of the most vulnerable groups in the Catholic church as uses them as an easy target in mounting an attack on the establishment. That is also unjust: most nuns I know are the ones working in AIDS clinics and homeless shelters, among the under appreciated souls who do such work from the goodness of their hearts, with is beautiful regardless of what religion is involved.

Yes, I agree that sometimes, agressive measures must be taken in order to get people to deal with bigotry, intolerance, and human weakness that allows this to continue. There are times for outrageous displays, but unless the group is advocating that the minority in question should be killed, that time is not inside a private worship service, home, or ceremony.

In my opinion, Antonyth, ignoring the issues I have raised and using the SOPI as your role model points to a lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking. Obviously, this doesn't describe any of the the people on this forum, so for those making fun "to act out," I ask, why degrade yourselves and others by deliberately resorting to snide comments?

[scott snedeker]

In my opinion, Antonyth, ignoring the issues I have raised and using the SOPI as your role model points to a lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking. Obviously, this doesn't describe any of the the people on this forum, so for those making fun "to act out," I ask, why degrade yourselves and others by deliberately resorting to snide comments?

To give one answer to your question (which I believe is less rhetorical than it appears) is as follows:

The reason I do drag, either in real life with costumes or online campy responses is to answer something unpleasant with creation of fun, or joy. It is changing by attraction rather than direct opposition.

Example: A reaction to an act of violence with creating art or writing a song or a establishing a sanctuary creates rather than opposes. It trivializes the act of violence by diverting attention and attraction away from it toward something better. This is part of the discipline of thought focus. Drag or camp are tools I use to create focus by attraction.

There are at least two ways to view the Sisters attendence.

A child would laugh at the funny painted faces and the silly clown-like antics of the sisters. I met Quite a few at Faerie gatherings and they really are a funny lighthearted mirthful bunch. So if someone "loosens up" a little it brings laughter to a grave negative situation then the personal barriers drop and good feelings are shared. Meeting severe gravity and condemnation with extreme silly ridiculousness. A self-secure light-hearted nun might even take a break and laugh at the comical chicature of herself and even feel a little flattered for the attention.

A serious inerrantist would see it as war paint, invasion, evil mockery, malicious iconoclastic blasphemy.

My question is: Which view feels better? Which makes you feel optimistic about the future? Which makes you feel free? Which internal emotional vibration do you want activated?

I know how I want to feel. I also know that I can control my thought focus and by viewing the same thing a different way feel good. And I can activate the same good feeling that is in other people by expressing my feelings in this way:love::love::love:

[keltic63]

I had a beautifully worded post that disappeared when I hit the submit button, ARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

I tried to find the news story from a legitimate news source. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any coverage from news services that don't have an obvious bias.

It is still unclear to me that the sisters in question should not have received communion. It is also unclear that anything besides their attendance at mass actually happened. There is talk of a protest outside, but I didn't read that in any of the reports. So what we have here is 2 men in drag, who may or may not be Catholic, receiving the Eucharist. There seems to be no apparent disruption in the service, although one "news" report hinted that this was the case. So the only real problem is that 2 people, whom many others dislike based on appearance and past history of their group, took communion, much to the dismay of a few other people.

Progo, I'm a bit upset that you bring the Folsom Street Fair into this. Do you have proof that these Sisters distributed the offensive "toys"? By introducing this 2nd piece of unrelated news, it certainly seems you wish to paint all gay people with the same brush.

Much of what you complain about in way of protest strategies, is very much what soulforce is either accused of or employs at actions such as the Equality Ride. That is a refrain we hear from closeted lgbt people at these colleges when they learn that soulforce is coming. "We've made headway. The atmosphere on campus is much better. Don't upset the Board of Directors, they'll go backwards in the treatment of LGBT people." if an out and proud gay person can set back the advances, then not many advances have been made.

Exchange a few words and replace them with "Soulforce" or "Civil Rights Movement" or "Blacks" or "Lgbt people" and see how that fits:

a) This will help kill efforts to reconcile the LGBT and religious communities. (BLACKS & WHITES) It is not fair to expect Christians and Catholics (STRAIGHT PEOPLE)to embrace the mockery of their faith (ORIENTATION). If Catholics were not angered by this, they would all literally be saints or enablers, either or.

b) This contributes to the double-standard argument that some Christians have felt compelled to make against new hate crime laws: if we're going to have hate crime laws, they shouldn't be reserved only for LGBT, Jewish, African American and other recognized minorities. A hate crime needs to be defined as defamation motivated by hatred of a particular group or its beliefs, and Christians need to be included in that protection. When society accepts what the SOPI did, it essentially says: "I'm against defaming the minorities that are trendy to defend, but I'm fine with defaming Catholics because they did it first, and it is wrong for them to maintain the traditional interpretation of the Bible even if they have made a good faith decision to do so." For me, this causes doubts about such individuals' understanding of what diversity and acceptance means, and I wonder if the same people would encourage racial diversity if it hadn't already gained ground through the blood and sweat of its advocates. And, getting back to the double standard argument, it ultimately hurts the gay community (BLACK COMMUNITY)by creating polarization between Christians and the LGBT community. (WHITES & BLACKS) It is my impression that many Christians (Whites) who would otherwise support the LGBT (BLACK) community don't do so because they are under the impression that LGBT (BLACK) groups are in the business of promoting promiscuity, immorality, etc. Stunts like what the SOPI (CIVIL RIGHTS PROTESTERS) pulled contribute to that impression.

3) It is hypocritical. In one does not want to be mocked, then one should not mock others that don't necessarily have anything to do with what they're protesting. If one is truly trying to live like Christ, then they should honor the second greatest commandment of doing unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Jesus was harsh with religious people who were hypocrites, but I think it's extremely unfair to label everyone who has a conservative belief regarding homosexuality (again, being used as a technical term, as I don't think that this belief in itself necessarily takes the complexities of LGBT orientation into account) is a hypocrite deserving of public ridicule. and please, continue to give these people a pass and a blessing to persecute us because they live in ignorance of all the research that says homosexuality is not a choice.

It is clear that not all lgbt people are going to take the route of nonviolence, and seemingly polite stances that we here at soulforce take. I think that's ok though. There is no law that says everyone who wants to achieve equal rights has to be nice about it.

[Progo35]

Keltic:

I respect your opinion and those of others. But I still disagree. Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that it was the "sisters" that distributed the sex toys at the fair. My point is that both actions involve hatred towards Catholics and that neither is acceptable. I think that basing one's assessment of these individuals only on their motivations and not on what the Eucharist means for Catholics and the derision that they promoted later. This does not make Catholic people "feel good," nor, in my opinion, is it fair for people on this forum or anywhere else to suggest that if the Catholic people only "improved" and thought like themselves, everything would be fine: that kind of attitude is only a poor inversion of what some in the LGBT community see in the Catholic church.

The reason that I support Soulforce is because it came to campus to engage in respectful dialogue about a theological issue that has far reaching social implications. People have a right to be respected, to have their self worth confirmed, and to have their civil rights. However, if the people of Soulforce had showed up with sex toys shaped like the Pope, I'd be first in line to have them arrested for public obscenity. People on the Soulforce team, and any other activist group, obviously is not sitting by and letting themselves be degraded, thus, they should not expect Christians to do that, either. In constrast to the narrow minded thinking that some here feel warrants this response, I don't think that the arguments articulated thus far in support of what the sisters did is any more open minded. The arguments I've read seem to say that since the Catholic church has doctrines that the LGBT community finds harmful, it is okay to for gay activists to do whatever they want in order "persuade" people to change their minds.

I think, in short, we won't agree, but I hope that people understand where I'm coming from on this issue: standards apply to everyone, and just because there is no law saying that someone has to be "nice" doesn't mean that they shouldn't be respectful.

Finally, "civil rights" do not apply to church theology itself. Because of freedom of religion, the Catholic church has a right to maintain its beliefs regarding human sexuality. Moral rights are another story, but the notion of "civil rights" should be reserved for secular/social affairs like equal education, equal job opportunity, and nondiscrimination in services that are provided to the public for its civic edification. I think that interjecting the phrase civil rights into this issue actually makes some people in the religious community fear that hate crime legislation will allow the state to determine what churches are allowed to believe, in violation of freedom of religion. I'm not saying that this is what it will do, I'm saying that any person in their right mind is not going to support legislation that takes away his freedoms. This is particularly relevant in the matter of religion: some people in the Catholic church feel that ammending their beliefs on homosexuality will result in divine punishment. So, you are essentially asking people to give up their salvation to support your idea of what tolerance and oppression are. Whether or not that is true is not the point. Religious people should have the right to maintain their beliefs without being harassed. The fact that some religious people have harassed LGBT people does not give some in that community the moral right to do the same thing.

I'm not sure what more I have to say on this because thus far I don't feel persuaded by these arguments and don't feel that it is effective for us to bicker back and forth as some ended up doing on my other disabilities/medical care/futile care thread. So, this time, I'm not going to continue presenting arguments in respect to this matter, because I don't think that it will lead us anywhere productive right now: it's not fundamentally important that we all agree on this issue, so I don't really have much more to say.

[keltic63]

I'm not sure what more I have to say on this because thus far I don't feel persuaded by these arguments and don't feel that it is effective for us to bicker back and forth as some ended up doing on my other disabilities/medical care/futile care thread. So, this time, I'm not going to continue presenting arguments in respect to this matter, because I don't think that it will lead us anywhere productive right now: it's not fundamentally important that we all agree on this issue, so I don't really have much more to say.

this seems to be a modus operandi for you Progo, introduce an argument then back away from it. As far as I'm concerned, what you need to show me at the moment is that these 2 sisters did something terrible, that they are not Catholic and partook of the eucharist in an attempt to mock and ridicule the church, and that this was in connection with some other protest that was happening. I've asked for this at least twice. Do you have a source for this story that is not obviously biased toward the Catholic Church, or fundamentalist religion in general?

your introduction of the sex toy news story appears to be an attempt to make this story much more than it is: SoPI went to Mass, SoPI was at Folsom Street Fair where offensive, sacrilegious sex toys were distributed, so obviously, SoPI is guilty of something!!!!

[scott snedeker]

Keltic:
Religious people should have the right to maintain their beliefs without being harassed. I see so the godless heathen morally inferior races will continue to be put in their places By God's good christian white chosen morally superior male dominated subserviantly obedient women nutured proper heterosexual monogamous and conforming elite. The fact that some religious people have harassed LGBT people does not give some in that community the moral right to do the same thing.

Because we are morally inferior and don't have the same entitlements?

I'm not sure what more I have to say on this because thus far I don't feel persuaded by these arguments and don't feel that it is effective for us to bicker back and forth as some ended up doing on my other disabilities/medical care/futile care thread..

And best not to. Again lines of sanctuary are being threatened by your wordcraft.
venture further and you will alienate me completely.

[Alecto]

I wish I could give you productive arguments, but I STILL don't know what we're arguing about. Is Keltic correct in his summary of what events actually took place?

As for Folsom, it is a leather / fetish fair. Is there overlap with the GLBT community? You bet yer ass there is (Something to do with the fact that we've already had to examine society's views on what is or isn't moral means that we're a little more likely to experiment with our sex lives).

As for the points you raise:
1)Individuals who allow the actions of a other individuals to influence their treatment of the greater group....those aren't any real advancements. If people still can't see us as individuals, then they're still missing the point.

2)See above. Also, there IS a difference between two similar actions against two different groups if there is a difference in power between the two groups. In the power hierarchy of our society, I'm not saying Catholics are specifically at the top. I will say that if we broaden out to "Christian", they SURE are at the top, but even if we still look at all the sects of christianity, Catholics are also certainly not at the bottom.
Hate to say it, but it goes back to the fact that people of color in this country can't be racist, because racism requires both power and prejudice. They may be bigoted, certainly (if all they have prejudice), but they don't have the power to be racist. I'm not saying that's a free pass, and that everything we do is ok because we're oppressed, but I will say that it's NOT the same thing to demonstrate disrespectfully as it is to dehumanize a group of people daily. Catholic people aren't exactly living in fear because of a couple drag nuns; anti-Catholic sentiment in this country has not been a part of a pattern of violence for awhile. Whatever damage is done to someone's feelings, it doesn't carry with it the Threat that is carried by homophobic sentiment. As I've said, it's not how I'd set up a protest, but I'm also not crying for the parish members.

[scott snedeker]

And best not to. Again lines of sanctuary are being threatened by your wordcraft.
venture further and you will alienate me completely.

No I was wrong. You have alienated me completely. Not an easy thing to do btw.

[antonyh]

Nevertheless, I have to say: Folsom St. Fair was DEFINITELY a gay/LGBT event. And, that's fine. In fact, I would think that an event of this nature would give gay people the opportunity to show that many different people are LGBT and the fact that being LGBT doesn't mean that one supports complete moral relativism, which is what media coverage of many LGBT events has indicated. This, in my opinion, is at least half the fault of the people doing such outrageous things as dancing around half naked in the street, imitating sex acts, etc. I don't want to see ANYONE doing that in public, gay, straight, or whatever. That is the reason that I and the people I know don't normally attend huge functions that attract a crowd, such as Times Square on News Years Eve, Mardi Gras, or Salem in Haloween. I'm not saying that it is wrong to attend these functions or that they are offensive, but most Christians I know avoid any gathering where they know that there might be excessive obscenity.


If people want to shake their naked butts in public, who cares? How is this immoral unless you have a 16th century puritanical sex ethic?


a) This will help kill efforts to reconcile the LGBT and religious communities. It is not fair to expect Christians and Catholics to embrace the mockery of their faith. If Catholics were not angered by this, they would all literally be saints or enablers, either or.


I'm sure the Catholic church is just waiting for the mocking to cease so that they can open their loving arms to the LGBT community. The Pope is going to embrace all homosexuals and give them the Eucharist, ordain them into the priesthood and allow them to marry. Maybe in a fit of generosity he will ordain women to ministry, allow priests to marry and encourage the use of condoms.


b) This contributes to the double-standard argument that some Christians have felt compelled to make against new hate crime laws: if we're going to have hate crime laws, they shouldn't be reserved only for LGBT, Jewish, African American and other recognized minorities. A hate crime needs to be defined as defamation motivated by hatred of a particular group or its beliefs, and Christians need to be included in that protection. When society accepts what the SOPI did, it essentially says: "I'm against defaming the minorities that are trendy to defend, but I'm fine with defaming Catholics because they did it first, and it is wrong for them to maintain the traditional interpretation of the Bible even if they have made a good faith decision to do so." For me, this causes doubts about such individuals' understanding of what diversity and acceptance means, and I wonder if the same people would encourage racial diversity if it hadn't already gained ground through the blood and sweat of its advocates. And, getting back to the double standard argument, it ultimately hurts the gay community by creating polarization between Christians and the LGBT community. It is my impression that many Christians who would otherwise support the LGBT community don't do so because they are under the impression that LGBT groups are in the business of promoting promiscuity, immorality, etc. Stunts like what the SOPI pulled contribute to that impression.


Religion is already a category in federal hate crimes laws. Hate crime laws will never usurp freedom of speech either. Christians will be able to spew their bigotry for the rest of time and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence will be able to protest their hatred for the rest of time. That is what freedom of speech is all about.


3) It is hypocritical. In one does not want to be mocked, then one should not mock others that don't necessarily have anything to do with what they're protesting. If one is truly trying to live like Christ, then they should honor the second greatest commandment of doing unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Jesus was harsh with religious people who were hypocrites, but I think it's extremely unfair to label everyone who has a conservative belief regarding homosexuality (again, being used as a technical term, as I don't think that this belief in itself necessarily takes the complexities of LGBT orientation into account) is a hypocrite deserving of public ridicule.


Somehow I don't think the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence give a hoot for the second commandment or for living like Christ. I find it interesting that you expect them to play by your religious laws. I think they want justice, dignity and the end of oppression.


In my opinion, Antonyth, ignoring the issues I have raised and using the SOPI as your role model points to a lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking. Obviously, this doesn't describe any of the the people on this forum, so for those making fun "to act out," I ask, why degrade yourselves and others by deliberately resorting to snide comments?

By embracing the sisters and pray tell...taking the name Sister Magnolia Fairbottom, I have embraced the joyful, playful way they are addressing the tyranny of the Catholic Church.

[antonyh]

If you want to read-line-upon line of judgmental, self-righteous, hypocritical, sanctimonious bs...read this article about the sister's visit. It is like witnessing the literal reincarnation of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. I can almost hear Christ's rebuke to these people...

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=25660

You have to love this inquisitional language:


The members of the virulently anti-Catholic organization, the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” should publicly acknowledge that what they did was anti-Catholic, intolerant and wrong. They should be held to account for their anti-Catholic, blasphemous actions. The Catholic lay faithful must rise to this moment and defend the faith and the rights of the Catholic Church. Fortunately, groups such as the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, led by the pugnacious and dedicated Catholic activist Bill Donohue, will not let this event go unnoticed. In an age of escalating anti-Catholicism, Catholic citizens must not be silent.

This egregious affair presents one more public moment for the Catholic Hierarchy to revisit the question of giving the most Holy Eucharist to those knowingly engaged in public and unrepented of sin. That includes those Catholics who are running for public office while openly condoning the taking of innocent human life in the womb or, as in this case, those engaged in disordered and deviant sexual lifestyles who use our Churches as their field for engaging in sacrilegious and anti-Catholic action in order to continue their efforts to force their propaganda on the public.

[Alecto]

I found this interesting:

When a Catholic receives this Sacrament, he or she attests to being in the full communion of the Catholic Church.
Am I the only one who can see that that may very well have been the point?

Thanks for the link.

[keltic63]

I found this interesting:

When a Catholic receives this Sacrament, he or she attests to being in the full communion of the Catholic Church.
Am I the only one who can see that that may very well have been the point?

Thanks for the link.So every Catholic that receives the Eucharist is in full communion with the church? every time a Catholic person steps up for the body and blood, they are saying that they support every teaching and have performed, to the best of their ability, every requirement, every tenet of the faith as taught by the Catholic church?

wait until I tell my Catholic friends who practice birth control, or the ones who have been married and divorced, but because they have moved into different parishes, continue to go forward for communion, or the ones who refuse to go to confession, or.....

No one has proven to me that the 2 sisters should NOT have received communion. Some of the articles about the event in question seem to say that the 2 should not receive communion because they've criticized the Catholic church. Well that should eliminate a great many practicing and faithful Catholics too. No one seems to know if the 2 sisters are indeed Catholic, that may be a point to argue from, but unless we can discover that information, the argument is pointless. A bigger issue from the news articles seems to be that the Archbishop has been sympathetic to the homosexual issue.

[RedneckDyke]

Ok, I have a question...... How can being tolerant of gay people(even if it was a sin) cause anyone to "lose their salvation"? What happend to "once saved always saved"?
That said, so if what there are sex toys shaped like the pope? who cares? There are sex toys shaped like dolphins too. Does that mean that gay people go out and kill flipper with spear guns?
I guess I just wonder why such a big deal is being made of what outrageous things people do at Pride. One day a year people act out, are impolite or raunchy. Every other day the sisters are probably boring suits who work in offices.
At Mardi GRas they have floats with figures of Bacchus on them. Does that mean it is offfensive to the church because it is an idol of an ancient GReek god?
Sheesh people need to get a grip. It's not that big a deal.

[kara speltz]

So every Catholic that receives the Eucharist is in full communion with the church? every time a Catholic person steps up for the body and blood, they are saying that they support every teaching and have performed, to the best of their ability, every requirement, every tenet of the faith as taught by the Catholic church?

wait until I tell my Catholic friends who practice birth control, or the ones who have been married and divorced, but because they have moved into different parishes, continue to go forward for communion, or the ones who refuse to go to confession, or.....

No one has proven to me that the 2 sisters should NOT have received communion. Some of the articles about the event in question seem to say that the 2 should not receive communion because they've criticized the Catholic church. Well that should eliminate a great many practicing and faithful Catholics too. No one seems to know if the 2 sisters are indeed Catholic, that may be a point to argue from, but unless we can discover that information, the argument is pointless. A bigger issue from the news articles seems to be that the Archbishop has been sympathetic to the homosexual issue.

I not only receive communion, I'm a Eucharistic minister and I give communion with my rainbow cross in plain sight. I am absolutely clear, that I am NOT in full communion with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The best kept secret is that you don't have to be, because the Church believes in the primacy of the conscience. Something I will never relinquish. God gave me my mind to use, not to simply obey what others tell me.

Kara

[Progo35]

As I've said, I could be wrong, but I hold to my opinions. I do think its unfair for any of you to argue that I am being intolerant, as I have tried in my own life not to be so and that is why I joined the forum.

I don't feel that religious organizations having religious rules will keep gay people "in their place," as Keltic puts it, as long as the state recognizes the marriage rights of LGBT couples. As long as LGBT people can have an equal marriage under the law (which they have yet to have in most states) I don't feel that the Catholic church or any other religious body will, in effect, interfere with their civil rights. I'm thinking of seperation of church and state here.

And, as I've said, the virile tone I've sense in bringing up the subject matter indicates to me that there are walls going up in this thread that are not constructive to civil dialogue. I'm glad, Kara, that you give the Eucharist at your church. That is wonderful, and your church is to be commended for its progress in edifying and supporting LGBT individuals. But, it is not fair to argume that people who hold different beliefs on this subject are the enemies of LGBT civil rights. Many people I know at Gordon who see Scripture as indicating that gay relationships are wrong still support civil rights for such individuals based on the seperation of church and state. So, what I'm saying is that there needs to be some consideration for the fact that conservative Christians who recognize this difference: that their faith and the law are two different animals: can be allies, and alienating them is not a good idea.

I think that what we have here is a simple difference of opinion on what is right and wrong in terms of the people running around naked at gay pride events. It is not a double standard to argue that no one should do that, in fact, I feel that it is patronizing to excuse people at the gay pride events from normal public decency requirements, and is actually a form of discrimination.

I would like to further reiterate that when I made the connection between SOPI and the Catholic sex toys, I was trying to emphasize anti-religious acts by several groups/individuals, not just SOPI, that alienate potential conservative allies.

As for people saying that it is my modus operandi to present a controversial argument and then back away, I disagree with this as well. I'm not attacking, or not intending to attack, anyone for what happened on the other thread in question. I am saying that it got to the point where it was clearly not in anyone's best interests to continue discussion, because we were basically hurting each other without any edification occuring. Thus, it would have been illogical and anti-social for me to continue discussing the subject on that thread, which, I feel, would have been recieved as me badgering the rest of the group.

I'm not attacking or condemmning anyone, I'm talking to the people here as a conservative Christian ally who felt alienated by my percieved intentions of SOPI. I could be wrong, and I've said that on several occasions. I feel that it is important for conservative religious people to dialogue with others in the LGBT awareness community about how the actions of certain groups are recieved. Otherwise, issues that lead to alientation would never be considered as effectively as they should. If I were doing something that was alienating someone whose mind I wanted to change, I'd want to know about it. Like SOPI, I might not change my tactic because I might feel that the person is wrong, but I would still want to know what there thoughts were on the topic, which I feel is better than them just not showing up for discussion at all.

[Pablo Rafael]

Meghan,

I agree with much of what you have to say. I think that as gays we must set a good example. We are a small minority group with a lot of negative publicity. I think that not only should we be AS decent as straight people, we should be more so. I know I am pretty conservative in my thinking, but I personally am offended when people in my own group act improperly or without thought as to the feelings of others. I also don't buy the old playground argument that we can be as disrespectful as we want because others are disrespectful to us. We don't need to be as kind and loving as others we need to be more so.

As I mentioned before, I'm not saying anything against the SOPI. I don't know enough about them to form an opinion. And I am not saying that we shouldn't challenge the church. Being a Catholic I see a lot of work that needs to be done within the church, and people need to speak out. But I think that the church needs to reach out in love to the LGBT community, and the LGBT community needs to deal with the church respectfully. A lot can be forgiven among friends, and a lot can be accomplished when we progress forward together.

I also think there is a place for conservatives in these forums. Not all of us are enemies to the LGBT community.

Pablo

[scott snedeker]

"Sorry but cut the crap"

Such a nice title communicating the concerned willingness and egalitarian sentiment of the poster to reach out and expand understanding. A carefully phrased title that is designed to create a respectful tone and lowering of personal defensive postures.

Or

A carefully calculated wordcraft that complies with the rules of enlightened conservative propriety which provides immunity from accountability for the gratification that comes with condemnation of the...

"morally inferior".

SHHHH!(Can't say that out loud)



But I don't really think either of these is the issue at all. I believe the issue stems from a dominant emotional vibration within you, Meghan. I feel unrest projecting from you. I perceive a drive to activate this unrest in other people and when accomplished you receive a sense of compensation and validation. This is your M.O. that alienates people. Continue this way and the world will seem hard, unfair and full of bastards.

But you can start changing today if you explore what unrest or sense of personal inadequacy is driving you and make peace with yourself.

I suggest Reading The Four Agreements By Don Miguel Ruiz for a start. The first Agreement, "Be impeccable with your word," takes months to make because to communicate A feeling of love and peace from within you must first genuinely feel it.

[kara speltz]

"Sorry but cut the crap"

Such a nice title communicating the concerned willingness and egalitarian sentiment of the poster to reach out and expand understanding. A carefully phrased title that is designed to create a respectful tone and lowering of personal defensive postures.

Or

A carefully calculated wordcraft that complies with the rules of enlightened conservative propriety which provides immunity from accountability for the gratification that comes with condemnation of the...

"morally inferior".

SHHHH!(Can't say that out loud)



But I don't really think either of these is the issue at all. I believe the issue stems from a dominant emotional vibration within you, Meghan. I feel unrest projecting from you. I perceive a drive to activate this unrest in other people and when accomplished you receive a sense of compensation and validation. This is your M.O. that alienates people. Continue this way and the world will seem hard, unfair and full of bastards.

But you can start changing today if you explore what unrest or sense of personal inadequacy is driving you and make peace with yourself.

I suggest Reading The Four Agreements By Don Miguel Ruiz for a start. The first Agreement, "Be impeccable with your word," takes months to make because to communicate A feeling of love and peace from within you must first genuinely feel it.

I tend to agree with you, the title of this topic in and of itself, it seems to me came from a superior posturing on the part of the author.

And, while I'm no fan of gay pride parades where outrageous costumes and behavior seems to be the focal point, I won't condemn them. I have yet to see anyone condemn the Madi Gras, or Carnival for outrageous costumes and behavior. There still prevails a clear double standard.

I do find it interesting that when some of us Catholics are not offended, it seems to have no significance to those who are offended but not Catholic. We, who feel it wasn't all that big a deal, get dismissed as being too libertine.

I'm a huge fan of the four agreements and think if we all endeavored to live by them, we'd have a much better world.

Given that we only have the power to change our own behavior, I try not to place judgments on other people's behavior. Clearly I don't always succeed, but I do try to keep it in mind.

Kara

[antonyh]

I think that as gays we must set a good example.


I think when the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence use parody to communicate a very serious message about the RCC, they are setting a good example. I think when Soulforce uses non-violent resistance they are setting a good example.


We are a small minority group with a lot of negative publicity.


As Kara pointed out, there is nothing that the LGBT community does that does not have a parallel in the straight community. It is just that religious fundamentalists make it a sport to snap pictures of LGBT events to scare their constituents into voting and donating and to prove the moral degeneracy of the LGBT community.


I think that not only should we be AS decent as straight people, we should be more so.


We are AS decent and AS boring and AS human as all our fellow human beings. We just have a lot more oppression to deal with.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael
I think that as gays we must set a good example.

We do. The vast majority of us quietly set examples that are continually ignored by fundamentalists. What better examples are there, than Fr. Mychal Judge, Henri Nouwen, Dr. Tom Dooley, Mary Moylan (of the Catonsville 9) all gay, and all Christian. If you don't know who they are, check out our webpage on these outstanding saints http://www.soulforce.org/article/26. There are clouds and clouds of witnesses to our service and dedication. Just look around you at this forum of people who stand in witness against bigotry. But we, as a people, will always fall short of the mark. And there will always be those who act in ways that embarrass us - every oppressed group faces that.

Keep your focus on what you are able to change and let's not add to the constant criticism that separates us from our brothers and sisters.

Kara

[u-dog]

We do. The vast majority of us quietly set examples that are continually ignored by fundamentalists. What better examples are there, than Fr. Mychal Judge, Henri Nouwen, Dr. Tom Dooley, Mary Moylan (of the Catonsville 9) all gay, and all Christian. If you don't know who they are, check out our webpage on these outstanding saints http://www.soulforce.org/article/26. There are clouds and clouds of witnesses to our service and dedication. Just look around you at this forum of people who stand in witness against bigotry. But we, as a people, will always fall short of the mark. And there will always be those who act in ways that embarrass us - every oppressed group faces that.

Keep your focus on what you are able to change and let's not add to the constant criticism that separates us from our brothers and sisters.

Kara


And I, for one, refuse to be embarrassed. There are other forms of wisdom than mine and other forms of activism than mine. I would not choose to dress up as a nun in whiteface and a floral hat. that is simply not who I am. But I am convinced that those who do, play a role, a function in this movement to bring about equality for GLBT people. Its a big tent we are erecting. it needs to be.

[Progo35]

The title I chose was reflective of my belief that the people on these forums know better than to run around naked in public or to do what SOPI did at the church service. I expected that despite varying viewpoints on what SOPI was trying to accomplish, those on this forum would be frustrated at SOPI for the image they projected of the gay community, even if SOPI's intentions were good.

The fact that many people here don't agree with me doesn't change my experience with those on this forum, which indicates to me that the people here would not do these things, so I'm not saying that because you disagree with my viewpoint, you're morally inferior. And, I am also not saying that I am morally superior to the people at SOPI, as I have done things that are inconsiderate before and will do them again. For instance, last week I ate someone else's ice cream out of the public freezer. I feel really bad about it, because I stole their ice cream. Since both acts are disrespectul to the people affected, my doing that may be even worse than what SOPI did, if not equally as bad.

"Crap" for me refers to something that is trivial, malicious, or unfair. I would not argue against SOPI doing their presentations (minus the names like Roz Erection, etc, which, as I've said before, would offend me regardless of an individual's orientation) in a public place like a protest outside in the open, where I definitely agree with U-Dog: different protestors and their different methods all have a place, because they present the issue from different vantage points and thus reach different groups of people.

In regard to having a "Puritan sex ethic," that is not the point. There are laws prohibiting public nudity and they should be enforced regardless of what function is going on. Otherwise, LGBT people are not given the same value and responsibilities as other citizens, which is just another form of oppression.

I feel badly that people feel that I am talking about this for a sense of validation, but I'm not. I am sort of disapointed that certain people here think that about me, as I thought that they would understand that I desire sincere dialogue and am being honest about my reaction to this particular event specifically to discuss how its social impact relates to the important fight for LGBT civil rights.

[antonyh]

The title I chose was reflective of my belief that the people on these forums know better than to run around naked in public or to do what SOPI did at the church service. I expected that despite varying viewpoints on what SOPI was trying to accomplish, those on this forum would be frustrated at SOPI for the image they projected of the gay community, even if SOPI's intentions were good.

The Catholic church calls us "intrinsically disordered". How could our image be made worse by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

[Progo35]

I am not referring only to the CC but to the conservative community and to those who on principle feel it is wrong to mock the religious traditions of any group, particularly in their own space.

The reason that it makes it worse is that that kind of action by SOPI adds fuel to the idea that LGBT people are "intrinsically disordered," because the members of that group do not have enough consideration for others to respect someone's place of worship, which indicates a "disorder" in respect to one's ability to show common courtesy. This particular factor is made worse by the fact that this may be the only interaction that some people in that church will have with an openly LGBT/LGBT ally person, because, as has been discussed, people who are gay in the Catholic community very often remain "in the closet."

[u-dog]

Megan,

25+ years ago I left the cornfields of Ohio to attend seminary in NEW YORK CITY. I went, ostensibly, as a white, straight, middle-class male. I had opinions about everything even though at 23 I had experienced almost nothing of life and as a person of privelege I knew NOTHING of what it means to live as an oppressed person

The seminary I attended was and is a very progressive and radical institution (always has been! They left the PResbyterian Church over a hundred years ago... right before they got kicked out! because one of their professors was embracing historical critical methods of biblical interpretation and the Church was trying him for heresy. At the time that I arrived this seminary was full of feminists, african americans, hispanics, gay and lesbian people. As a young, white, straight (so they thought) middle class male. I learned very quickly to sit down, shut up, and listen. I didn't like learning to do this, but it was a valuable lesson. In three years of listening to voices of the oppressed I learned WAY MORE about the world than I would have done in three years of expressing my opinions. It meant that I could come to know GLBT people and to appreciate the realities of "their" lives. I heard and learned to appreciate women and all the subtle and not so subtle ways in which womens voices are silenced in this culture. I got to know African American people for the first time in my life and to begin to see this racist nation from a different point of view. In short, I learned to see the world through different eyes. My life has never been the same. THERE IS A REASON WHY THE SON OF GOD ENTERED THE WORLD AND SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH THE CAST-OFFS AND THE OPPRESSED!! it is only from there that you can see the Kingdom of God approaching. You can't see it from the vatican in Rome. Or from Washington DC or from Oral Roberts University. You CAN see it from the third row of the GLBT church where Polly and I worship which is why we go there.

What I'm trying to say... not in a mean or exclusive way AT ALL ... is that you are young and white and privileged. You need to sit down and shut up :) in the way that I had to do... in order to hear what oppressed people are saying. There is much for you to learn from the Sisters. You don't have to "like" what they do. You don't need to "approve" what they do. You need to listen to and observe what they do and try to understand the world from their perspective. Pope Benedict will NEVER see them or hear them ... but what they are doing is speaking the truth to power. Its a dangerous and messy business, but it is what oppressed people are called to do. its why we exist.

I say this in ALL LOVE with ALL RESPECT. Its time to listen.:love:

[Depdem]

How are the SoPI different from Christians strolling right in the middle of a gay event with their signs and blowhorns, warning the hell that awaits them and how detestable they are? Together with an ounce of dehumanization and the clear outline that gays do not deserve rights because they are-i mean, condone and practice, the sin.

Many catholics vilify gays and many gays vilify many christians. Taking the holy Eucharist that is sacred to all catholics and that is to be taken under a 'sinless' state or repented state, when obviously this was not case IS a disrespect to all of the Catholic community.

Is this as bad as christians throwing excrement and eggs at a Gay Pride Parade? Or killing/advocating death to gays under the premise that they are worthy of it because the bible said so? Hell no, imo. But this does not only bolster their position that gays have been 'given up' and have a 'depraved mind', it aids the very cause which they are against.

Why do they dress up in gowns that are only appropriate if you're actually what the gown represents? Or eat a piece of bread that is central to that belief? For the sake of mockery? How does that help the gay community..., for kicks and laughs only?

If this was to expose the hypocrisy of christians, it fails.... because catholics going against this determined heretic attitude is not out of hypocrisy but out of upholding their already existing belief.

So in all, this methodology failed... and miserably at it, imo.

[keltic63]

How are the SoPI different from Christians strolling right in the middle of a gay event with their signs and blowhorns, warning the hell that awaits them and how detestable they are? Together with an ounce of dehumanization and the clear outline that gays do not deserve rights because they are-i mean, condone and practice, the sin.

Many catholics vilify gays and many gays vilify many christians. Taking the holy Eucharist that is sacred to all catholics and that is to be taken under a 'sinless' state or repented state, when obviously this was not case IS a disrespect to all of the Catholic community.

And you KNOW this how??????????


Is this as bad as christians throwing excrement and eggs at a Gay Pride Parade? Or killing/advocating death to gays under the premise that they are worthy of it because the bible said so? Hell no, imo. But this does not only bolster their position that gays have been 'given up' and have a 'depraved mind', it aids the very cause which they are against.

Why do they dress up in gowns that are only appropriate if you're actually what the gown represents? Or eat a piece of bread that is central to that belief? For the sake of mockery? How does that help the gay community..., for kicks and laughs only?

If this was to expose the hypocrisy of christians, it fails.... because catholics going against this determined heretic attitude is not out of hypocrisy but out of upholding their already existing belief.

So in all, this methodology failed... and miserably at it, imo.

In this entire thread, and the links that have been posted, NO ONE, NOT ONE PERSON has been able to demonstrate the motives of the SoPI in this particular event. NO ONE has demonstrated that the 2 sisters involved are NOT CATHOLIC. NO ONE has been able to determine that their presence at this particular mass was anything beyond attending a religious service.

[Daniel]

And this thread, oddly enough, reminds me of those who concern themselves with Tantra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra
Rather than a single coherent system, Tantra is an accumulation of practices and ideas which has among its characteristics the use of ritual, energy work, in some sects transgressional acts, the use of the mundane to access the supramundane and the identification of the microcosm with the macrocosm. The Tantric practitioner seeks to use the divine power that flows through the universe (including their own body) to attain purposeful goals. These goals may be spiritual, material or both.

I believe there is a case to be made for the Sisters actions being in line with those who seek transformation, both in the spiritual and material spheres. This perspective is lost on those who can only as far as the edge of their noses, who prize the safety of their ego's above everything else, and who live by a code which is ultimately sterile, judgmental and lifeless. The Law - capital L- is all important. Right. Wrong. Absolutes. Morals. The herd must stay in a single line to heaven, even at the cost of one's own soul. The trantic understands, however, that this is not life, but sleep-walking.

The trantric turns everything on it's head. Not to deny the truth, but rather, to experience the Real hidden and obscured even in that which is mundane, profane, cast away, forgotten and denied. Tantra reaches past duality - easy answers and forgotten questions- into unity, and that which is beyond all objects, both internal and external.

This is frightening territory to those who must have there God just so- who make Him into their own image, who cannot see beyond male and female, right and wrong, up and down, good and bad, sinner and saint, sacred and profane.

Those who keep the Law of Love written on their hearts have no need to find laws to break or offense with others outwardly different from themselves. They are busy looking past the appearance of things.

~

And as for looking past the appearance of things....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071014/vatican-gay-monsignor/


Vatican Official Insists He's Not Gay

October 14, 2007 09:13 AM EST |

VATICAN CITY — A Vatican official suspended after being caught on hidden camera making advances to a young man said in an interview published Sunday that he is not gay and was only pretending to be gay as part of his work.

In an interview with La Repubblica newspaper, Monsignor Tommaso Stenico said he frequented online gay chat rooms and met with gay men as part of his work as a psychoanalyst. He said that he pretended to be gay in order to gather information about "those who damage the image of the Church with homosexual activity."

[Progo35]

I do get a bit offended when I hear myself referred to as "young, white and privledged" and this is presented as a reason for me not to share my viewpoint. Moreover, I feel that this ignores the fact that I, too, am I minority, I have a very serious learning disorder that only 0.7-1 % of the population has and thus, does not understand or appreciate. So, despite the fact that I do come from an upper middle class background, i would argue that I have experienced just as much discrimination as many of the people here, short of being rejected by my own family.

I, too, had to leave my church, (at 11 yrs old!) because I was getting death threats and someone tried to attack me with a butcher knife. I, too, was told that I didn't have a right to attend after school activities, or public school, or that I was damaging the aspirations of "normal" people. Tragically, my Dad tried to help me by being so tough on me that he was actually quite mean to me at times, hoping that his bullying would correct my idiosyncresies. Of course, my mom and Dad didn't understand several things. How dare my parents by so inconsiderate as to expect second graders whose parents expected them to go to Harvard to learn in the same classroom as me? What right did I have to go out on the playground, knowing that I might be sexually molested by my peers? This, of course, was my fault. I shouldn't have worn a skirt, in fact, I shouldn't have gone out on the playground at all: I should have stayed inside during recess in the resource room.

In fact, I didn't even have the right to live in the first place. I was retarded and should have been aborted. My parents should have shot me after I was born. God must hate me because he made me this way. My parents must have lost a bet with Him, and I must be His way of punishing them. I should, of course, by killed so as to relieve my peers and environment of my corrupting existence. I shouldn't be bothered by this fact because I don't actually have any feelings. It wasn't really their fault that other kids broke my teeth with rocks, drenched me with swamp water, destroyed my personal property and groped me while pulling off my clothes...and the adults usually did nothing: the adults had many kids to watch and the kids couldn't understand the ramifications of their actions: wouldn't it have been better if I had just stayed in the resource center or went to another school?

Of course it was acceptable for my fifth grade remedial math class to study social studies while the rest of our class went to make fudge as a reward for doing well in math: we weren't in the "real" math part of the class, so it made total sense that the five of us were singled out in front of everyone. Or, so our teachers thought.

It also was perfectly reasonable for my high school guidance counselor to tell me that I didn't have a right to take geometry, even though I was an honors student and it was an entrance requirement for every college in the country. My brain does, after all, have significant problems processing visual/spatial information, and if I can't process it the same way as everyone else, I was never, ever going to understand the material, so what right did I have to attend college? It is a privledge.

Moreover, when I got to college, what right did I have to "recieve" a 3.77 GPA and enter the honors program? Surely, I didn't actually earn those grades? Even if I did, how does having a learning disabled student in their honors program(s) make Gordon College look? Doesn't it undercut the academic rigor that these classes are supposed to represent? How could I be so selfish as to infring upon the long-held ideal of self-improvement that these classes promote? How could I possibly maintain a 3.5 average for the rest of my college career with an intellectual deficit?

And, of course, I'm insane. I talk to myself. I might hurt someone. I should be locked in a mental institution. I should be ashamed when someone calls the police while I'm walking down a public street: I should know better! I should control myself! Would you not call the police if you thought someone had gone off their rocker? I must stop this now!

These are the things that people have said to me outright and that I have dealt with throughout my life, from childhood until now. For someone who is young, white, and privledged, I think I have a pretty good idea of what it's like to be put at a disadvantage, or to be an oppressed minority.

[Progo35]

On the other hand, I realize that I do not understand what it is like to be LGBT in America because I am not LGBT and don't have any close friends (or even acquaintences) who are. Because of this, I've joined this forum, which I've found to be an edifying experience.

U-Dog is right: sometimes I do need to shut up and listen because I'm not in the LGBT community's shoes, anymore than I'd guess the people here know what it's like to be in the shoes of someone with my learning disorder. My point is, being a minority brings oppression in many ways, regardless of what color or economic status you are.

But, the point in my being here is to listen so that I can edify myself, and I've really benefited from the constructive criticism that I have gotten in most of the discussion I've participated in. But, I would like people to understand that just because I hold a different viewpoint than many of the people here, my head isn't in the sand. Moreover, I do feel a lot of empathy, and want to be involved in making the US a better place for all minorities. But, criticize, please, and I will shut up, unless I feel the arguments being made are inconsistent, in which case I will pose a dissenting argument, but as I think we all know, continuing to argue without any resolution/and or allowance for each other isn't going to benefit people. So, I'm sorry if I have perpetuated this discussion beyond what is appropriate: if people feel that I should shut up, I will.

[antonyh]

On the other hand, I realize that I do not understand what it is like to be LGBT in America because I am not LGBT and don't have any close friends (or even acquaintences) who are. Because of this, I've joined this forum, which I've found to be an edifying experience.

U-Dog is right: sometimes I do need to shut up and listen because I'm not in the LGBT community's shoes, anymore than I'd guess the people here know what it's like to be in the shoes of someone with my learning disorder. My point is, being a minority brings oppression in many ways, regardless of what color or economic status you are.

But, the point in my being here is to listen so that I can edify myself, and I've really benefited from the constructive criticism that I have gotten in most of the discussion I've participated in. But, I would like people to understand that just because I hold a different viewpoint than many of the people here, my head isn't in the sand. Moreover, I do feel a lot of empathy, and want to be involved in making the US a better place for all minorities. But, criticize, please, and I will shut up, unless I feel the arguments being made are inconsistent, in which case I will pose a dissenting argument, but as I think we all know, continuing to argue without any resolution/and or allowance for each other isn't going to benefit people. So, I'm sorry if I have perpetuated this discussion beyond what is appropriate: if people feel that I should shut up, I will.

The disabled are deeply oppressed by society and maybe it is your personal sense of oppression that brought you Soulforce. And you are welcome here. I wanted to ask you...where does the oppression of the disabled flow from? What creative resistance to the oppression of the disabled can be applied?

From the LGBT experience, much of our oppression does flow from religion. The SOPI are simply applying creating resistance to the source of oppression.

[Daniel]

U-Dog is right: sometimes I do need to shut up and listen because I'm not in the LGBT community's shoes, anymore than I'd guess the people here know what it's like to be in the shoes of someone with my learning disorder. My point is, being a minority brings oppression in many ways, regardless of what color or economic status you are.


This is like the umpteenth time you've referenced having a learning disorder. Since you aren't very shy about yakking about it, you might as well let us know what it is.

In detail.

That way we might, just might, be able to understand you a little better.

[u-dog]

I do get a bit offended when I hear myself referred to as "young, white and privledged" and this is presented as a reason for me not to share my viewpoint.

Of course you do Megan!! I remember feeling the same way. Try "pushing through" that feeling though (in spite of your minority status as a learning disabled person) because on the OTHER SIDE of that "pissed off" feeling is the place where you REALLY start to learn important stuff about God, yourself, and other people.

Its not about entitlement ... its about hearing and understanding. Its about true humility in the face of the suffering of others. Very few people ever get to that place. Very few people get as close to it as you are already :love: I see you as a person working hard to "get it" Stick with it. I appreciate that about you.

[Alecto]

Membership to the opression club (tm), I think, means that we have the slightest advantage at finally "getting" the fact that we can never fully "get it". That is, I'm a white gay male. I know full well that just because I'm gay does NOT mean I totally understand what it's like to be oppressed due to race or gender. I'd argue that because I'm gay, I understand how and why I can never FULLY understand these oppressions. And that sometimes, we all need to shut up and listen.

That out of the way, I was preparing to address the title of this thread, and what I've percieved as a common theme throughout. Assuming for an instant that the actions of the sisters were "wrong", your coming here with a thread entitled "cut the crap" implies a responsibility onto US for the actions of these men. It's severely troubling that such things are generalized. I think you've seen from the responses that, while many of us may disagree with your assessment of the situation, I don't think any two of us have fully agreed with each other either. We're individuals, and many of your replies seem to imply that you personally aren't treating us as such, or else that it's ok for other people not to treat us as such.

As for what happened, I'm still clueless. I think I've mentioned that because I no longer identify as Catholic, I don't feel it is my place to do too much to change that church. It's not my community, and I feel that current members are probably better equipped to do so (and my job is to support them in their efforts).
The sisters in question may have been Catholic. And they may have beleived in the Transubstantiation. And they may have recieved the Sacrament in the spirit it was intended. By doing so in outrageous attire, they make the point that they ARE members of that faith community, and that they DO have a place at the Lord's table. That is how I read the situation, because that makes the most sense to me as for why these gentlemen would do what they did how they did. That said, I might be wrong; as Antony has stated, it's really hard for us to judge the situation when we have such limited information on it. At very least, there could be a just, righteous reasoning behind that type of protest.

[Progo35]

[QUOTE=Alecto;43877]I was preparing to address the title of this thread, and what I've percieved as a common theme throughout. Assuming for an instant that the actions of the sisters were "wrong", your coming here with a thread entitled "cut the crap" implies a responsibility onto US for the actions of these men. It's severely troubling that such things are generalized. I think you've seen from the responses that, while many of us may disagree with your assessment of the situation, I don't think any two of us have fully agreed with each other either. We're individuals, and many of your replies seem to imply that you personally aren't treating us as such, or else that it's ok for other people not to treat us as such.


I'm sorry that the title of my thread came across that way. No, I don't feel that anyone here is responsible for what those men did: that would be ridiculous. Although, I guess that in a way, I'm saying to Soulforce as an advocacy group that in my opinion, it should not extend approval to these measures. But, I didn't think that the people here that I have spoken to have. But, I don't know about people who come here and don't talk...and so, I guess, I'm venting to Soulforce as an LGBT advocacy group about how the efforts of another advocacy group made me feel because Soulforce supports semi "aggressive" action by going to campuses without permission and protesting when the schools do not welcome them, which can offend people, but I guess what I was saying, "Coming to campuses uninvited to engage in civil discussion is a good idea. In fact, I think that maybe disabled people should do that, too. But I hope that none of you would actually participate in actions that actually mock other people for the beliefs they hold. As LGBT advocates, are you not angry at SOPI for how they presented LGBT people to the worshippers in that church? After all, your civil dialogue based on Biblical interpretation was, I think, why so many people at Gordon went to your presentations while you were on campus." If the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence had showed up, I don't know what we would have done, because I think that many people who are willing and desire to accept LGBT people into the Christian community are not going to simultaneously excuse indugent behavior, which is what the title of this group implies.

I don't know it for certain, but I am willing to bet money that the people in this group are not Catholic. If they were LGBT and went to take communion in their regular clothes and were turned away, a situation that one person brought up earlier in this thread, then I would definitely agree that they were treated unfairly, because they were going to accept the Eucharist for what it is supposed to represent: they salvation in Christ, not to make fun of the church.

But, maybe they are, after all, I don't know these people. But, from this thread I think that the people here can see that conservatives from far away only know what they look up on the internet, read in a book, or see on TV. I really can't anticipate any change in my perspectives that would lead me to accept that kind of behavior as a valid resistence method. That doesn't mean that I don't support gay rights, I just don't agree with this method.

[Progo35]

Antonyh and Daniel:

I haven't forgotten about your questions and want to respond to them well, which is why I haven't commeted on them yet.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Progo35

I don't know it for certain, but I am willing to bet money that the people in this group are not Catholic. If they were LGBT and went to take communion in their regular clothes and were turned away, a situation that one person brought up earlier in this thread, then I would definitely agree that they were treated unfairly, because they were going to accept the Eucharist for what it is supposed to represent: they salvation in Christ, not to make fun of the church.

But, maybe they are, after all, I don't know these people.

The particular incident that we're talking about happened at Most Holy Redeemer here in San Francisco and was reported today on our local newscast. For the record, the two receiving communion were identified as Catholic. In addition this particular parish is considered the gay parish in S.F.

Again, it seems to me what someone wears to receive communion is of absolutely no one's concern. Having been refused communion, simply because I was wearing a rainbow cross should have had no effect, but I was still refused the Eucharist. Jesus gave Judas the Eucharist at the Last Supper, who are we to act any differently, and then arrogantly cry outrage?

Kara

[keltic63]

The particular incident that we're talking about happened at Most Holy Redeemer here in San Francisco and was reported today on our local newscast. For the record, the two receiving communion were identified as Catholic. In addition this particular parish is considered the gay parish in S.F.

Again, it seems to me what someone wears to receive communion is of absolutely no one's concern. Having been refused communion, simply because I was wearing a rainbow cross should have had no effect, but I was still refused the Eucharist. Jesus gave Judas the Eucharist at the Last Supper, who are we to act any differently, and then arrogantly cry outrage?

Kara

Thank You, Kara. This is the information I've wanted to hear throughout this thread. 2 men, dressed as nuns, showed up at a Catholic Church in San Francisco, and they received communion. There didn't appear to be any disruption of the liturgy, and there was no protest outside the church. So, what is the point of this thread, other than to draw attention to the more flamboyant members of our particular group, and ridicule them for being themselves?

let's face it, straight people do everything, and more, that gay people do. No one takes a picture of the revelers at Mardi Gras and suggests that they are doing a disservice to straight people everywhere. I'm sure a few of them, in their drunken revelry have stumbled into a church and received communion when perhaps they shouldn't have. We don't have news reports about it.

and I agree with others that have posted here, the title of this thread is provocative.

[keltic63]

MrDbgjLKoxU

I found this while I was out searching the web for info about this story. It's pretty clear that the people editing the video have some kind of axe to grind, and it looks like it's more against the ArchBishop than the SPI. It also appears that the person shooting the video is focused on the Sisters, while no one else in the congregation even seems to notice them. There's more to this story than a couple of drag nuns showing up at Mass, and I don't think it has anything to do with the SPI.

[Progo35]

Your local reporter's account of them being Catholic is one source, but I personally would like to ask them why they hang out with a group who's motto is, go forth and sin some more, which seems very unkind and unfair to anyone who truly understands sin as something that spans not only personal things like wyhat you do with your own body, but what you do to others as well.

[Progo35]

Keltic says that the title of this thread is provocative. It is. But then again, what the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence was extremely provocative, and Keltic, along with many here, seems to feel that that was fine. This is the double strandard that will continue to hurt the LGBT community as it alienates conservative allies. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. But, if Christians are expected to see what the sisters did with the Eucharist as a gesture that brings down boundaries rather than putting them up, then I think that anyone who feels that way should encourage that same provocative action from me or other dissenters.

[Daniel]

Progo- I thought you were going to respond to the post by Anthony and myself. What happened?

Too busy reacting?

But, if Christians are expected to see what the sisters did with the Eucharist as a gesture that brings down boundaries rather than putting them up..

To be succinct, the only thing the Sister did with the Eucharist is partake of it. They didn't throw it on the floor or demean it in any way. And the- to my eyes anyway- gay parishoners of the Parish (shown in the video) greeted them warmly afterwards. As noted, this is a gay Parish. And seeing that you've noted you don't know any gay people (in the flesh that is), you hardly have the benefit of a first hand experience of things.

The offense is your own Progo. Nurture it well and you'll have a cause to fight.

Perhaps you do already. And that would be unfortunate. Defenders of the faith usually are pretty lonely people. Mad and angry. Nothing to live for except their anger. Is that who you want to be?

It's time to let this go.

[Alecto]

First:
The members of this forum are by no means necessarily affiliated directly (or in some cases indirectly) with Soulforce. We've all found our way here through different means, just as you found your way here. I have no clue whether or not Soulforce as an organization condones the Sisters' behavior or not. All you've got is individuals.

Second:
I don't know whether or not you see how offensive it is when someone from OUTSIDE of a group comes in and tries to divide it. You have to stop and think about how that looks and feels. Because, y'know what? If I'd stumbled across this story on my own, I might very well have been at least resistant to the idea (until I could track down the full story). But when a straight person starts telling me which of my queer brothers and sisters I should condemn in order to be a good little gay boy and appease the rest of the straight community, that carries with it a WHOLE lot of extra baggage. What I'm saying to you is: the reasons you've provided for bringing this story here, to Soulforce aren't very good reasons. And the title is patently offensive (which you first say "Oh, well, I didn't mean for it to sound like that", but then say "sure it's offensive, but so are they!". Which again says "it's ok for me to offend you [soulforce] because they [some other random gay group] were offensive to me").

From my end, I'm not seeing any kind of good faith for true dialogue here.

As for the Sisters: I've already stated how recieving the Eucharist in drag can be a very strong move to establish the fact that we DO all belong at the Lord's table.

[keltic63]

Progo- I thought you were going to respond to the post by Anthony and myself. What happened?

Too busy reacting?



To be succinct, the only thing the Sister did with the Eucharist is partake of it. They didn't throw it on the floor or demean it in any way. And the- to my eyes anyway- gay parishoners of the Parish (shown in the video) greeted them warmly afterwards. As noted, this is a gay Parish. And seeing that you've noted you don't know any gay people (in the flesh that is), you hardly have the benefit of an understanding of the context of the Sisters appearance.

The offense is your own Progo. Nurture it well and you'll have a cause to fight.

Perhaps you do already. And that would be unfortunate. Defenders of the faith usually are pretty lonely people. Mad and angry. Nothing to live for except their anger. Is that who you want to be?

It's time to let this go.

You know, at about 1:11 in the video you can get a pretty good view of the guy at the keyboard, and it could easily be me! The gays have been serving the church for a long, long time. Is it so awful to think that a couple of drag queens took communion?

[Daniel]

But when a straight person starts telling me which of my queer brothers and sisters I should condemn in order to be a good little gay boy and appease the rest of the straight community, that carries with it a WHOLE lot of extra baggage. ]What I'm saying to you is: the reasons you've provided for bringing this story here, to Soulforce aren't very good reasons. And the title is patently offensive (which you first say "Oh, well, I didn't mean for it to sound like that", but then say "sure it's offensive, but so are they!". Which again says "it's ok for me to offend you [soulforce] because they [some other random gay group] were offensive to me").

Well spoke. Well Spoke.

Especially the part about a straight person coming here to ask us to condemn others who, in their own way, fight for liberation from religious oppression.

Is it so awful to think that a couple of drag queens took communion?

A line which has acquired legendary status by the biggest drag queen of them all- Tallulah Bankhead- as the priest passed her in church.

"Darling....I love the dress....but your purse in on fire!"

[Progo35]

In response to responding to Daniel and Atonyh's questions

1) I'm not sure that the nature of my disability is the point here. I just told you that I, like many gay people, black people and other minorities, have experienced rampant discrimination and mistreatment throughout my life because of my disability. That, in my opinion, should be enough to establish a connection between my situation and the situation of others who have experienced oppression.

2) I have a specific video that I want to show you all, which shows me in person talking about my disability in a video that I and some of the other disabled students at Gordon put together. Nevertheless, in order to do this, I have to post it on youtube, which I have not done yet for two reasons:

3) Although the people in that video signed a blanket consent saying it was okay to show it to others, I do want to be respectful to the people in it and ask their permission before putting thier disclosure of their own disabilities online for all the world to see. I don't think that posting the video without doing this would be kind or compassionate towards them

4) I tried to post just my section of the video and the intro right after I read David and Antonyh's posts, but my computer wouldn't let me. If you think that this is me making an excuse, shoot me. I can't control what my computer does.

5) If I share the specifics of my disability with the group, I don't want those specifics being used to invalidate my arguments. In short, I don't want people to write off what I say because of how my disability impacts the way I process information and respond to it. I don't want to here, "Are you sure this isn't your disability making you think that way...?"



I really feel that some of the response to this thread has been a bit unfair. It isn't like I said that any of the people here or Soulforce had to condemn the individuals in the group, I just said that what they did on that particular occasion should be condemned. In regards to what I said earlier about provocativeness being a tool of the SOPI and the fact that many people here approve of this provocativeness, I think that the same consideration for possible good motives should be extended to me.

[Progo35]

This is a link to the Nonverbal Learning Disorders Association, which I actually just found tonight online: in my extensive research on the topic, I hadn't heard about this organization before, so you learn something new everyday, I guess. :D

http://www.nlda.org/

[Alecto]

You can't seem to make up your mind whether SOPI should be condemned, or whether you should get away with some disrespectful "provocativeness" for the same reasons they do. It seems like it really can't be both.

The ONLY thing I have to say about what you've just said about your disability is that, no. The fact that you are in some ways oppressed does not give you insights into ALL of the ways in which we are oppressed. Just like the ways in which I've been oppressed do not allow me to walk into POC space and tell them "Geez, guys, what's up with these rap groups?", nor does it allow me to say anything with any authority about how Thalidomide!: A musical is necessarily "good" or "bad" for education about people with handicaps.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide!!_A_Musical). I refuse to get into a divide and bicker and criticize match for the amusement of a straight audience who DOES NOT HAVE the experience of being queer in America. Yes, you've seen discrimination, but it takes very, VERY different forms for disabled folks than it does for queer folks, especially when you look at what's going on with the incident you're discussing.

A relevant, respectful thread might have gone something like "I find this action offensive because x, y, and z. is there maybe something I"m missing as for the motivations behind this action? How do the Sisters view the action; what statement is trying to be made?"

Instead, we got "Cut the crap!".

(As for the "double standard"; personally, I know full well the statements that the Catholic church is trying to make about homosexuality. And I know what statements individuals within the church have made. I think all of it is equally stupid and equally oppressive, and even equally illogical)

[scott snedeker]

Negative emotional Gratification will hold back spiritual and emotional development. In the end the resulting reinforcement of indulging in it will perpetuate the present state of unwellness by widening the separation of conscious self from true feelings. Continuing a constructed belief in an organic brain disorder compounds the situation exacerbating unwellness. Far too much adeptness in right brain abilities have been demonstrated to support a right hemisphere organic disorder.

Let go. It is time to move forward. Come out of your own closet of a different sort. Feelings of unworthiness in the long run are better mended with positive true self affirmation, acceptance and love. Look to activate these on this site and you will receive it in abundance.

Coming out is a frightening thing especially among people to whom you have been closeted. It's ok. We have all been there.

[Progo35]

I'm sorry that I titled my thread in that way. Please forgive me.

[dsdrane]

I really feel that some of the response to this thread has been a bit unfair. It isn't like I said that any of the people here or Soulforce had to condemn the individuals in the group, I just said that what they did on that particular occasion should be condemned. In regards to what I said earlier about provocativeness being a tool of the SOPI and the fact that many people here approve of this provocativeness, I think that the same consideration for possible good motives should be extended to me.

Yet another example of someone being shocked -- shocked! -- that the bees start a-buzzin' after having their beehive whacked with a baseball bat.

But, in an attempt to further "cut the crap", I'm willing to wager that the shock is really only for show and, in fact, this thread's author has gotten -- and continues to get -- exactly the reaction desired.

Gratuitous musing over...now, where were we...?

:rolleyes:

[kara speltz]

One of the things that has not been pointed out, is that the day that this happened was the day of the Castro Street Fair. It seems to me that these two "faithful Catholics," who happen to be members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence dressed to celebrate the Fair and chose also to worship on Sunday as all Catholics are required to do under penalty of sin.

The context of this, I believe again helps us understand the situation. A gay Catholic parish in the midst of the Castro on the day of the Castro Street Fair - none of this was done to provoke or shock, I do not believe.

Now lets look at the motives for filming this. It was filmed by a group of anti-gay right wing Catholics who are trying to embarass the new bishop. Let's have a little "outrage," about that! The mean spiritedness of these so-called "good Catholics, in good standing," is counter to all that Jesus stood for.

Kara

[BrentRichards]

One of the things that has not been pointed out, is that the day that this happened was the day of the Castro Street Fair. It seems to me that these two "faithful Catholics," who happen to be members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence dressed to celebrate the Fair and chose also to worship on Sunday as all Catholics are required to do under penalty of sin.

The context of this, I believe again helps us understand the situation. A gay Catholic parish in the midst of the Castro on the day of the Castro Street Fair - none of this was done to provoke or shock, I do not believe.

Now lets look at the motives for filming this. It was filmed by a group of anti-gay right wing Catholics who are trying to embarass the new bishop. Let's have a little "outrage," about that! The mean spiritedness of these so-called "good Catholics, in good standing," is counter to all that Jesus stood for.

Kara

Well said ... the video is extremely telling. I was partly of two minds before seeing this - that is to say, I suspected the intent was to cause a scene, though I wasn't sold that that was necessarily evil. The video looks like two people genuinely participating in mass. Is their dress more than a little outrageous? Sure. So what?

As this video is clearly intended by "them" to show how bad "we" are, we must presume that they would not have left out any more "disruptive" footage, which would have served their cause. I see nothing disruptive here! If this had happened in the parish here in my little Lancaster County town, the congregants would likely have reacted very differently. But, in the context of this Castro parish, nobody seems bothered by it. In fact, you'll note in the footage that one older male parishoner approaches the two afterwards and clearly mouths the words "Thank you for being here."

The scandal is being created by the right wing... and that's the real scandal. They were there, filming, looking for trouble ... who told them the sisters would be there, taking eucharist? I doubt anyone did ... they knew the affirming character of the parish, and they object to it. They went with their cameras hoping to "strike gold" ... which, in my opinion, they didn't. All they demonstrated to me is that they themselves are willing to exploit a eucharist for political gain.

[u-dog]

In one of the frames of text were the words "Those who persist in grave sin". Paul the apostle unambiguosly defines using the Eucharist as a tool of division within the church as "GRAVE SIN" . Who is persisting in grave sin here? Those two SOPIs ? Not as far as I can see. Other than their over the top wardrobe they seemed to take communion with as much reverence as the rest of the faithful. It is the film makers who, I BELIEVE, Paul would have called on the carpet for dishonoring the sacrament.

What business did they have running a video camera in a worship service in the first place?


SORRY MEGAN!! AFTER SEEING ALL THE EVIDENCE? the SOPI are not the villains in this story.

[Vanessa White]

I have been reading over the responses and thinking on this thread most of the day, not really sure what to write relative to it. My thoughts are this: considering what is emerging as what seems to be the facts, that these two sisters were just there, taking communion, and that the rest seems to be mostly inflammatory, I am overwhelmed by sadness, and anger. Sadness, because of how this to me, without oversimplifying this matter, no matter what we dress it up in, those who want to have a problem with who we are and what we do are going to continue to condemn us, look for ways to put us as a community upon display and make us out to be the troublemakers. My anger comes from a place of being totally disgusted and sick of the way that media, at times, twists and turns stories to cater to their own interests. I know, it happens every day. I know, it is a part of life. But it disgusts me that those with the responsibility to report on newsworthy items use it as an opportunity to slam others of us. And, I don't just feel that way about the portrayal of the LGBTQ community, it is also how the war is often portrayed, world events, celebrity mishaps- it just angers me and frustrates me. I AM SO TIRED OF MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY, OR OUR ALLIES, HAVING TO TRY TO JUSTIFY NOT SO MUCH WHAT WE DO, BUT WHO WE ARE AS HUMAN BEINGS. WE SPEND OUR DAYS, OUR HOURS, HERE ON THESE FORUMS, TO GAIN INSIGHT, KNOWLEDGE, AND OFFER OF OURSELVES AND ONE ANOTHER TO HOLD EACH OTHER UP. (Capitalized rant- sorry) It is where the fine line is hard to see, in my opinion, between respecting what others express as their own views, and perpetuating their own sense of priviledge, or views that perpetuate the stereotyping or negative beliefs about members of our community.

IT JUST ALL AROUND PISSES ME OFF................:mad:

[Vanessa White]

I just came back to post once more so that I could hit.........






1000 POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !:p

[Zerbie]

I just came back to post once more so that I could hit.........






1000 POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !:p

:lol::D

Ah Vanessa. . . CONGRATS! on your first thousand!!!!

:):love:

[BrentRichards]

In one of the frames of text were the words "Those who persist in grave sin". Paul the apostle unambiguosly defines using the Eucharist as a tool of division within the church as "GRAVE SIN" . Who is persisting in grave sin here? Those two SOPIs ? Not as far as I can see. Other than their over the top wardrobe they seemed to take communion with as much reverence as the rest of the faithful. It is the film makers who, I BELIEVE, Paul would have called on the carpet for dishonoring the sacrament.

What business did they have running a video camera in a worship service in the first place?


SORRY MEGAN!! AFTER SEEING ALL THE EVIDENCE? the SOPI are not the villains in this story.

I still dream occasionally of the Episcopal priesthood (my current denomination won't have me, as I'm honest) ... I picture this being sung every week at the Eucharist ... and actually MEANT!

tsUdDSd4L7M

[Daniel]

:lol::D

Ah Vanessa. . . CONGRATS! on your first thousand!!!!

:):love:

I still remember your smiling face at Gay Pride this past summer here in NYC. Glowing, beautiful and radiant.

You go girl!

[dsdrane]

I still dream occasionally of the Episcopal priesthood (my current denomination won't have me, as I'm honest) ... I picture this being sung every week at the Eucharist ... and actually MEANT!

tsUdDSd4L7M

...and wonderful hair!!

(Hers, too.)

:cool::D


P.S. Oooooo, Brent, let's go to Seabury-Western together...it's right here in Evanston and we can meet Dash everday for lunch! Woohoo!

[BrentRichards]

...and wonderful hair!!

(Hers, too.)

:cool::D


P.S. Oooooo, Brent, let's go to Seabury-Western together...it's right here in Evanston and we can meet Dash everday for lunch! Woohoo!

Great plan, but a heck of a commute.

[Progo35]

I think that new info is very important. I will look at it. Perhaps I was wrong.

U-Dog: SORRY doesn't seem like an appropriate way to respond to me, as if I had some sort of truly viscious intent in posting this or as if I would be disapointed If they weren't being blasphemous. Since I would regard Kara's clarification of the issue as credible, I would have to say that that is a very different matter. Had this information been available earlier, it would have helped to understand what was going on. No one, except for Bill or Reilly and the recent column in Kara's local newspaper, has covered the story that I know of, so I only knew what I saw on TV. I maintain my position on provoking the people in the church if that had been their intent, but if they were just there dressed like that because they happened to be at the fair at the same time, than I can empathize with that a bit more. And, I'm happy to admit if I was wrong. If the right wing did that to further their cause, than that was wrong.


In terms of my learning disorder, which is a completely different topic, I am not going to talk about it anymore on this thread. Since Daniel and Antonyh asked me to describe it, I posted the link, but I really think that that particular topic belongs on another thread. So, I may post a thread about it.

[kara speltz]

I think that new info is very important. I will look at it. Perhaps I was wrong.

U-Dog: SORRY doesn't seem like an appropriate way to respond to me, as if I had some sort of truly viscious intent in posting this or as if I would be disapointed If they weren't being blasphemous. Since I would regard Kara's clarification of the issue as credible, I would have to say that that is a very different matter. Had this information been available earlier, it would have helped to understand what was going on. No one, except for Bill or Reilly and the recent column in Kara's local newspaper, has covered the story that I know of, so I only knew what I saw on TV. I maintain my position on provoking the people in the church if that had been their intent, but if they were just there dressed like that because they happened to be at the fair at the same time, than I can empathize with that a bit more. And, I'm happy to admit if I was wrong. If the right wing did that to further their cause, than that was wrong.




The point is that you accepted something that Bill O'Reilly said. The man is a right wing fanatic who's anti-gay sentiments are very clear. Why take his word for anything? Check your sources before you condemn the LGBT community. kara

[Alecto]

I'm not going to jump down your throat about it, but it does suggest something to me (I was going to type "us", but caught myself projecting) that you were willing to believe O'Reilly. Not just because he's infamously biased, but because the FIRST thing I thought of when I read the limited information was "Maybe they're Catholic, and just taking their rightful place in a Sacrament they have every right to." And I found it frustrating that you seemed to not even consider the possibility until you had evidence otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent, as it were. And I have to wonder why that is (and, assuming the best about you, I'm figuring you might want to do some pondering as to why that is too).

[u-dog]

I think that new info is very important. I will look at it. Perhaps I was wrong.

U-Dog: SORRY doesn't seem like an appropriate way to respond to me, as if I had some sort of truly viscious intent in posting this or as if I would be disapointed If they weren't being blasphemous. Since I would regard Kara's clarification of the issue as credible, I would have to say that that is a very different matter. Had this information been available earlier, it would have helped to understand what was going on. No one, except for Bill or Reilly and the recent column in Kara's local newspaper, has covered the story that I know of, so I only knew what I saw on TV. I maintain my position on provoking the people in the church if that had been their intent, but if they were just there dressed like that because they happened to be at the fair at the same time, than I can empathize with that a bit more. And, I'm happy to admit if I was wrong. If the right wing did that to further their cause, than that was wrong.


In terms of my learning disorder, which is a completely different topic, I am not going to talk about it anymore on this thread. Since Daniel and Antonyh asked me to describe it, I posted the link, but I really think that that particular topic belongs on another thread. So, I may post a thread about it.

"Sorry" refers to being sorry to disagree with you (which is always dissappointing) and being "sorry" that you are wrong about this incident (since no one LIKES to BE wrong) I did not then, nor do I now, harbor any suspicion that you are vicious or somehow hoping that the SOPI are bad people.

[keltic63]

I think that new info is very important. I will look at it. Perhaps I was wrong.

U-Dog: SORRY doesn't seem like an appropriate way to respond to me, as if I had some sort of truly viscious intent in posting this or as if I would be disapointed If they weren't being blasphemous. Since I would regard Kara's clarification of the issue as credible, I would have to say that that is a very different matter. Had this information been available earlier, it would have helped to understand what was going on. No one, except for Bill or Reilly and the recent column in Kara's local newspaper, has covered the story that I know of, so I only knew what I saw on TV. I maintain my position on provoking the people in the church if that had been their intent, but if they were just there dressed like that because they happened to be at the fair at the same time, than I can empathize with that a bit more. And, I'm happy to admit if I was wrong. If the right wing did that to further their cause, than that was wrong.


In terms of my learning disorder, which is a completely different topic, I am not going to talk about it anymore on this thread. Since Daniel and Antonyh asked me to describe it, I posted the link, but I really think that that particular topic belongs on another thread. So, I may post a thread about it.

The point is that you accepted something that Bill O'Reilly said. The man is a right wing fanatic who's anti-gay sentiments are very clear. Why take his word for anything? Check your sources before you condemn the LGBT community. kara

I'm not going to jump down your throat about it, but it does suggest something to me (I was going to type "us", but caught myself projecting) that you were willing to believe O'Reilly. Not just because he's infamously biased, but because the FIRST thing I thought of when I read the limited information was "Maybe they're Catholic, and just taking their rightful place in a Sacrament they have every right to." And I found it frustrating that you seemed to not even consider the possibility until you had evidence otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent, as it were. And I have to wonder why that is (and, assuming the best about you, I'm figuring you might want to do some pondering as to why that is too).

I'm going to do this because this seems to happen often here, and I'm getting a complex about it.

I brought up the possibility of the nuns in question actually being Catholic in this post: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43729&postcount=17 which is post #17 and posted on Saturday Oct 13, a mere 12 hours after this thread was started. IGNORED.

post #35, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43763&postcount=35 saturday evening, AGAIN, I request a legitimate news source that proves the sisters were disturbing the service, or not eligible to receive communion. IGNORED.

post #37, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43769&postcount=37 another request for an unbiased news source that substantiates the claim that the sisters were protesting, or disrupting the service, or were ineligible to receive communion. IGNORED.

post #44 http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43784&postcount=44 another request and my first inclination that this was an attempt to discredit the Archbishop Niederauer.

post #59, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43840&postcount=59 I call into question the fact that no one in this thread has yet proven that there were ulterior motives for the sisters to be in attendance at Mass.

post#69 Thank you Kara! http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43913&postcount=69 finally a connection that makes some sense.

post #71 http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43927&postcount=71 thanks to kara's info, I'm able to find the video of the mass in question. It's painfully obvious that the photographers are looking for something with which to either bash the SoPI, but more likely, the Archbishop.

post #72 http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43928&postcount=72 let's just bury our heads in the sand......

posts #84, 85 Thank you Kara and Brent, this whole "scandal" is being created by an anti-gay far right wing Catholic group who doesn't appear to like Archbishop Niederauer.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=44052&postcount=94 it takes this long to finally GET IT??????

I often complain to myself that I'm just not all that articulate. I say things, post things, which I think are pretty clear, but feel no one has quite understood. Others, with a much finer command of the language express it better than I do, and garner the admiration they deserve for speaking so eloquently. In this thread, I feel like I've been standing on a street corner banging a drum and only a few have heard me.

[Daniel]

I often complain to myself that I'm just not all that articulate. I say things, post things, which I think are pretty clear, but feel no one has quite understood. Others, with a much finer command of the language express it better than I do, and garner the admiration they deserve for speaking so eloquently. In this thread, I feel like I've been standing on a street corner banging a drum and only a few have heard me.

You have it. You can- and do- put your finger on the logic of a situation as it presents itself. It's not that you're unappreciated Steve. It's that you're really good at reading a situation.

That said, I think there is another matter at work here. Material of the sort that was dumped on this forum (not a nice word- but an accurate one) always seems to come with an implicit demand for someone else to figure it out.

So while we're all busy responding to the crazymaking, you're sitting on the sidelines waiting for the rest of us deal with the obvious.

[andrewlittle]

I often complain to myself that I'm just not all that articulate. I say things, post things, which I think are pretty clear, but feel no one has quite understood. Others, with a much finer command of the language express it better than I do, and garner the admiration they deserve for speaking so eloquently. In this thread, I feel like I've been standing on a street corner banging a drum and only a few have heard me.

I have read this thread voraciously, but have refrained from posting. I usually make that choice when I am ignorant of information of a situation. I preferred to listen in and learn.

So, Keltic, I read each and every post, including yours, and I must admit that the thought struck me very early on that you posited a possibility that was reasonable and asked questions that should have been considered. Rather than your posts being ignored, I think they provided impetus for people to continue thinking and rethinking the subject at hand. It was, however, obvious that the party(ies) to whom you were primarily addressing your remarks did, in fact, ignore them. I don't think everyone did that, though.

Personally, I found your post quite eloquent, BTW. [Okay, now how do I this nasty stuff off my nose.]

[u-dog]

You have it. You can- and do- put your finger on the logic of a situation as it presents itself. It's not that you're unappreciated Steve. It's that you're really good at reading a situation.


That said, I think there is another matter at work here. Material of the sort that was dumped on this forum (not a nice word- but an accurate one) always seems to come with an implicit demand for someone else to figure it out.


But why is this a bad thing? yeah its taken us days and days to sort this thing out. We have wandered down dead ends and jump at the red herrings and swallowed them whole. true we didn't IMMEDIATELY recognize how insightful Steven was or to acknowledge it once we did... but so what? Lots of garbage got fed into the top of the machine and truth came out the bottom. That works for me.

[dsdrane]

But why is this a bad thing? yeah its taken us days and days to sort this thing out. We have wandered down dead ends and jump at the red herrings and swallowed them whole. true we didn't IMMEDIATELY recognize how insightful Steven was or to acknowledge it once we did... but so what? Lots of garbage got fed into the top of the machine and truth came out the bottom. That works for me.

It isn't necessarily...but sometimes you're left with the lament I'd like the last two hours of my life back!

I think this points to a larger problem.

I'm constantly amazed when certain friends and family members forward on (despite the fact that they know my politics) right-wing conspiracy crap. Many times, I'll duly look up why what they sent me -- and so many others -- is, in fact, crap, and then I duly let them know.

I actually had one person (an older friend of the family whom I know to be a Republican) write back saying they never check out the validity of what they persist in passing on.

Incredible!

What ever happened to reading/viewing something critically?? Alecto hit the nail on the head: why doesn't it even occur to certain people that what they're reading/viewing is biased.

Isn't everything biased to a certain degree? And doesn't that mean everything must be critically analyzed???

Do they not teach this stuff in school anymore???

:mad::disagree::unhappy::headbang::whistleblower:

[kara speltz]

I often complain to myself that I'm just not all that articulate. I say things, post things, which I think are pretty clear, but feel no one has quite understood. Others, with a much finer command of the language express it better than I do, and garner the admiration they deserve for speaking so eloquently. In this thread, I feel like I've been standing on a street corner banging a drum and only a few have heard me.


Dearest Steve: It was your questions that got me started on trying to find out what really happened. It actually took 3 separate newscasts to piece the full story together, but I'm always grateful for your insights and your questions. kara

[Daniel]

But why is this a bad thing? yeah its taken us days and days to sort this thing out. We have wandered down dead ends and jump at the red herrings and swallowed them whole. true we didn't IMMEDIATELY recognize how insightful Steven was or to acknowledge it once we did... but so what? Lots of garbage got fed into the top of the machine and truth came out the bottom. That works for me.

It may not be your conscious intent, but saying 'so what' seems perilously close in meaning to 'get over it Steve'. Is that the message you want to send?

[Zerbie]

I'm going to do this because this seems to happen often here, and I'm getting a complex about it.

I brought up the possibility of the nuns in question actually being Catholic in this post: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43729&postcount=17 which is post #17 and posted on Saturday Oct 13, a mere 12 hours after this thread was started. IGNORED.

post #35, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43763&postcount=35 saturday evening, AGAIN, I request a legitimate news source that proves the sisters were disturbing the service, or not eligible to receive communion. IGNORED.

post #37, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43769&postcount=37 another request for an unbiased news source that substantiates the claim that the sisters were protesting, or disrupting the service, or were ineligible to receive communion. IGNORED.

post #44 http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43784&postcount=44 another request and my first inclination that this was an attempt to discredit the Archbishop Niederauer.

post #59, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43840&postcount=59 I call into question the fact that no one in this thread has yet proven that there were ulterior motives for the sisters to be in attendance at Mass.

post#69 Thank you Kara! http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43913&postcount=69 finally a connection that makes some sense.

post #71 http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43927&postcount=71 thanks to kara's info, I'm able to find the video of the mass in question. It's painfully obvious that the photographers are looking for something with which to either bash the SoPI, but more likely, the Archbishop.

post #72 http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=43928&postcount=72 let's just bury our heads in the sand......

posts #84, 85 Thank you Kara and Brent, this whole "scandal" is being created by an anti-gay far right wing Catholic group who doesn't appear to like Archbishop Niederauer.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=44052&postcount=94 it takes this long to finally GET IT??????

I often complain to myself that I'm just not all that articulate. I say things, post things, which I think are pretty clear, but feel no one has quite understood. Others, with a much finer command of the language express it better than I do, and garner the admiration they deserve for speaking so eloquently. In this thread, I feel like I've been standing on a street corner banging a drum and only a few have heard me.


Oh my, please don't get a "complex!!" :D Every time I read your calm and placid remarks about whether or not the folks in drag might be Catholic, I was like, "Oh, totally." And I waited for the others to catch up to your question.

[Zerbie]

I


I actually had one person (an older friend of the family whom I know to be a Republican) write back saying they never check out the validity of what they persist in passing on.

Incredible!

What ever happened to reading/viewing something critically?? Alecto hit the nail on the head: why doesn't it even occur to certain people that what they're reading/viewing is biased.

Isn't everything biased to a certain degree? And doesn't that mean everything must be critically analyzed???

Do they not teach this stuff in school anymore???

:mad::disagree::unhappy::headbang::whistleblower:

Actually, I don't believe they do, at least not always or often. I think we are raising a generation of people who are taught not to question anything they're told.

[u-dog]

It may not be your conscious intent, but saying 'so what' seems perilously close in meaning to 'get over it Steve'. Is that the message you want to send?

Of course not! Heavens, I'm the president of the Keltic Fan club. I'm just saying that this thread was a process that resulted in the uncovering of truth. so we ran down some blind alleys and bruised our noses on some dead ends... its life.

[Progo35]

Actually, I did do research on this issue myself, but couldn't find an unbiased source.

To be fair, I don't think that O Reilly is anymore biased than any of the "left wing" "conspirators" out there, and think that he addresses topics (such as those relevant to the disability community) that the regular news ignores (just another example of conflict between the interests of two minority groups and their allies, although I have no idea what O Reilly's position on learning disorders would be. I do feel that it is good to listen to all kinds of sources, which is why I try to find out information before I respond to things.

But anyway, in getting back to my research, the only article on this situation that I was able to find is the one that Kara talked about, which I looked up, which was published yesterday. Given my experience with the mainstream media, I happen to be certain that they generally do not pay any attention to situations where Christians really are mocked or persecuated for their faith, so not finding any information from any relatively unbaised source (one that doesn't have direct, personal involvement in LGBT rights or issues, like, say, CNN or CBS, etc.) didn't actually surprise me, nor does it today.

The only resources I was able to find before I began this post were tilted too far to either side of the spectrum in terms of involvement and tolerance of beliefs/ideas. I.e., all the news I could fine was either from pro-LGBT websites that also stated that the Pope was a Nazi, or from anti-LGBT websites that said that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were part of an overall decay of society, neither of which I would regard as credible. I didn't even see any mainstream LGBT or religious body, like Glad or an unbiased Catholic report, that talked about it. So, frankly, out of the possibilities, O'Reilly was the most ubiased that I could find, and, like I said, even if someone did show up to mock a Christian ceremony, I really don't think we would here about it on the mainstream news, so it is not surprising to here about something from O'Reilly and not here about it somewhere else, despite my later research confirming its validity.

I did, however, go on to SOPI's website, where I saw nothing to indicate that any of them were catholic, as the bios I read either made no mention of what the individual believed, said they were searching for their spirtiuality, liked Easter mysticism, or that they didn't care for religion. There was no mention of being a devout Catholic in any of the ones I read. Moreover, some of the jokes and pictures on the website only supported my feeling that SOPI was at the church to irritate people. However, I was unable to read all of the member's biographies at one time, so I decided to refrain from using that research on this forum before I was able to get information on everyone, as information on a few individuals would not have been helpful in determining whether or not the two people involved could have been Catholic.

So, I did do my own research, I didn't just start talking about it because Bill O Reilly said it. I do happen to know from reading his most recent book, however, that Bill O Reilly supports gay couples adopting children and having the same rights as married couples, despite not wanting to call it marriage, because he sees that as a religious term. So, despite what I see as holes on his education on LGBT issues, I think that he generally supports gay rights.


I'll be interested to see whether or not Bill O Reilly does a follow up on the story, perhaps he has been able to find more information on the situation as well. Speaking of which, if I email him to convey this information, is it okay to mention that I had discussed the issue on the Soulforce forums? Not that he'll neccessarily read my email, but I do make a point of emailing various media, political or other people that I think should have more information, made an inappropriate decision, needs to pay more attention to an issue, or who has made an obvious mistake in thier presentation of something.

[keltic63]

I did, however, go on to SOPI's website, where I saw nothing to indicate that any of them were catholic, as the bios I read either made no mention of what the individual believed, said they were searching for their spirtiuality, liked Easter mysticism, or that they didn't care for religion. There was no mention of being a devout Catholic in any of the ones I read. Moreover, some of the jokes and pictures on the website only supported my feeling that SOPI was at the church to irritate people. However, I was unable to read all of the member's biographies at one time, so I decided to refrain from using that research on this forum before I was able to get information on everyone, as information on a few individuals would not have been helpful in determining whether or not the two people involved could have been Catholic.



http://thesisters.org/bios/delta.html

Why Did You Become A Sister?
Growing up with very strong Catholic faith and being taught and mentored by the Marianist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianist) brothers at the all-boys Chaminade High School, the concepts of faith, spirituality, service, and God have always been in the forefront of my life. My education and time at Chaminade High School continue to be the most meaningful of my life. I am forever grateful and appreciative to Chaminade and the Brothers there. Since those days however, I've wanted to find an organization that I could commit to and that would satisfy my need to serve. With the expansiveness of work The Sisters do (education, fundraising, ministry, activism, outreach), I knew would be satiated!



Religious Beliefs
As mentioned above, I am a gay Catholic. I find it unfortunate that so many people have not been able to understand or want to allow me to be a gay Catholic. Jesus told me himself he has no problem with my being gay. Don't believe me? Prove it.

Regardless, in no way do I attempt to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church — I am not the Pope (too much responsibility) or some Bishop (already in middle management) or some Priest (my inclination is toward men, not boys). I am a Nun. I do not attempt to proselytize my Catholic faith to the masses. I acknowledge and am hurt by the oppression, travesties and weaknesses of the leadership of the Catholic Church that have been perpetuated throughout history! However, having grown up in the faith, received many sacraments, seen the true Faith of devout Catholics and witnessed the absolute presence of the Holy Spirit, I am proud to be Catholic.

My goal is to promulgate universal joy and expiate stigmatic guilt. My personal calling as a Sister is actually a beautiful manifestation of my Catholic faith. It allows me to keep God ever-present in my life and ultimately, live the life of Christ... in fabulous make up and heels, of course! More so, it affords me the opportunity to serve alongside and be enriched by my fellow Sisters and a beautiful, diverse community.

Sister Delta Goodhand is one of the 2 nuns who attended the mass in question.

http://thesisters.org/bios/img/delta.jpg

[Progo35]

Great! Like I said, I only got through the first six.

As I said in my former post,

"the bios I read either made no mention of what the individual believed, said they were searching for their spirtiuality, liked Easter mysticism, or that they didn't care for religion. There was no mention of being a devout Catholic in any of the biographies that I read. Moreover, some of the jokes and pictures on the website only supported my feeling that SOPI was at the church to irritate people. However, I was unable to read all of the member's biographies at one time, so I decided to refrain from using that research on this forum before I was able to get information on everyone, as information on a few individuals would not have been helpful in determining whether or not the two people involved could have been Catholic. "

As I've also pointed out, the only identifying information about which members went to mass was printed in Kara's article, not even SOPI would say who went, so there was no way to know this until October 16th, yesterday. In looking the people up now, we now have the advantage of knowing the identity of at least of the people who went and going directly to their biography before looking through the other ones.
Although, I have to say that the reason I feel compelled to ammend my analysis of the situation is because the two (or at least one of them confirmed) were Catholic and just happened to be part of SOPI. So, they were going and doing something that they do frequently, if not more than once a week. If they were not Catholic and took the sacrament anyway to make a point about it or mock it, I would stand by my initial assessment of the act, which, in my opinion, would be an attack on the Catholicism. Some of the people here seem to feel that even if these individuals were not Catholic and were trying to make a point by "making light" of the Eucharist or using it to highlight past or current grievences with the Church, Christians and Catholics shouldn't be offended, but should welcome this method with approval and "tolerance" which I think is unreasonable and unfair. No one should have their religious beliefs mocked, especially not in their own sactuary, no matter what the motivation.

I'm glad that this was not the case and hope that O'Reilly and anyone else who picks up the story corrects the misinformation that has previously been reported.

[kara speltz]

I'm glad that this was not the case and hope that O'Reilly and anyone else who picks up the story corrects the misinformation that has previously been reported.

Your take on O'Reilly, blows my mind, this man is a full fledge bigot. And while I'm not a betting woman, I know enough about O'Reilly, that I'd bet $100 that he'll never tell the full story because his intention was to malign LGBTs. kara

[u-dog]

Your take on O'Reilly, blows my mind, this man is a full fledge bigot. And while I'm not a betting woman, I know enough about O'Reilly, that I'd bet $100 that he'll never tell the full story because his intention was to malign LGBTs. kara

Kara is right. O'Reilly is an ideologue. His ideas/opinions are a priori and cannot be changed or adjusted by experience or reason. His agenda is to fit the facts into his agenda NOT to adapt his agenda to fit the facts. Plus... he's mean. You know the bumper sticker that says "Mean people suck!" Yeah... that.

[Progo35]

Well, it's okay not to agree on everything. :D

[Depdem]

http://thesisters.org/bios/delta.html






Sister Delta Goodhand is one of the 2 nuns who attended the mass in question.

http://thesisters.org/bios/img/delta.jpg

I totally misjudged this nun. Now I admire him! Gotta learn to REALLY research things before actually jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

[Daniel]

Well, it's okay not to agree on everything. :D

Sure- we're not going to agree about everything. For instance, the following train of thought- or rather- lack of it - in the following post.


Although, I have to say that the reason I feel compelled to ammend my analysis of the situation is because the two (or at least one of them confirmed) were Catholic and just happened to be part of SOPI. So, they were going and doing something that they do frequently, if not more than once a week. If they were not Catholic and took the sacrament anyway to make a point about it or mock it, I would stand by my initial assessment of the act, which, in my opinion, would be an attack on the Catholicism. Some of the people here seem to feel that even if these individuals were not Catholic and were trying to make a point by "making light" of the Eucharist or using it to highlight past or current grievences with the Church, Christians and Catholics shouldn't be offended, but should welcome this method with approval and "tolerance" which I think is unreasonable and unfair. No one should have their religious beliefs mocked, especially not in their own sactuary, no matter what the motivation.

I'm glad that this was not the case and hope that O'Reilly and anyone else who picks up the story corrects the misinformation that has previously been reported.

Here are the facts.

You started this thread in a provocative manner, defending your righteous anger every step of the way. The truth of the matter was shoved under your nose.

Have you accepted it? One wonders. If you did, why make make a last jab at 'some of the people' while deigning to hope that others will not pass along 'misinformation', a bigoted view which you were oh so eager to pass along in the first place?

Just who are 'some of the people'? Who is 'making light' of Catholics and the partaking of the Eucharist? The same ones you came to instruct in morals?

Again, you make assumptions, the kind of assumptions which got you into trouble in the first place.

[dsdrane]

Although, I have to say that the reason I feel compelled to ammend my analysis of the situation is because the two (or at least one of them confirmed) were Catholic and just happened to be part of SOPI. So, they were going and doing something that they do frequently, if not more than once a week. If they were not Catholic and took the sacrament anyway to make a point about it or mock it, I would stand by my initial assessment of the act, which, in my opinion, would be an attack on the Catholicism. Some of the people here seem to feel that even if these individuals were not Catholic and were trying to make a point by "making light" of the Eucharist or using it to highlight past or current grievences with the Church, Christians and Catholics shouldn't be offended, but should welcome this method with approval and "tolerance" which I think is unreasonable and unfair. No one should have their religious beliefs mocked, especially not in their own sactuary, no matter what the motivation.

I'm glad that this was not the case and hope that O'Reilly and anyone else who picks up the story corrects the misinformation that has previously been reported.

I don't really even know where to start. The illogic in this thread is so tangled at this point even Hercules would have trouble slicing through it.

I have the following thoughts, however.

First, some people are born without a sense of humor, whereas others opt for elective surgery to have it removed. One wonders which is the case here....

Regardless, the humorless person is rendered incapable of recognizing and indeed enjoying the campy hilariousness and serious silliness not only of the Catholic Church (I say this with all due respect...honestly) but also of those wacky zanies (Catholics and non-Catholics) who have used it as fodder for some rib-tickling over the millenia.

I mean: Monty Python alone....

And what about that Spanish Inquisition?

You can't make this stuff up, folks!

:rolleyes:

Where was I going with this...? Oh yes...bringing the funny.

Shame on the archbishop for being strong-armed into issuing that mea culpa. What a weenie! Sad is the person who cannot enjoy a man dressed up as a nun.

Actually, come to think of it, this thread is pretty damn funny, too. Let's review the facts, shall we?

A non-gay person has come into our "sanctuary" brandishing Bill O'Reilly to tut-tut the perceived outrageousness of some crazy (I say this with all due respect...honestly) drag queens in the Castro, demanding that we, too, denounce them and collect some rope for the lynching.

Now that's funny!

[Daniel]

A non-gay person has come into our "sanctuary" brandishing Bill O'Reilly to tut-tut the perceived outrageousness of some crazy (I say this with all due respect...honestly) drag queens in the Castro, demanding that we, too, denounce them and collect some rope for the lynching.

Now that's funny!

Maybe this is why the theatre has those two faces, one smiling and the other frowning. What do they call it now? A Dramodie?

However, a more apt term might be farce.


farce
n.
1) A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect.

2) The branch of literature constituting such works.

3) The broad or spirited humor characteristic of such works.

4) A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery: The fixed election was a farce.

5) A seasoned stuffing, as for roasted turkey.

Take your pick. I'm going with a combination of 1 and 4. The only thing missed is the requisite slamming door scene. Buy hey....the day is still young.

[Vanessa White]

I, myself am looking forward to a perfectly roasted turkey with some good seasoned farce thrown in next month. Any other takers??:D

[u-dog]

Shame on the archbishop for being strong-armed into issuing that mea culpa. What a weenie! Sad is the person who cannot enjoy a man dressed up as a nun.

Actually, come to think of it, this thread is pretty damn funny, too. Let's review the facts, shall we?

A non-gay person has come into our "sanctuary" brandishing Bill O'Reilly to tut-tut the perceived outrageousness of some crazy (I say this with all due respect...honestly) drag queens in the Castro, demanding that we, too, denounce them and collect some rope for the lynching.

Now that's funny!

David, I've been on the learning curve that that "non-gay person" is on... its a steep learning curve (the learning curve of the concerned non-oppressed person trying to understand what it means to be a part of an oppressed community) Megan is a person of strong convictions who is trying hard to "get it" I have absolutely no doubt that she will. To be fair, Lots of gay people try this strategy (seperating the "good" gays from the "bad" gays in order to curry favor with the oppressor.) I see very clearly now how wrong it is... but I didn't always. I still maintain that this conversation has been a good use of my time. :love:

[kara speltz]

David, I've been on the learning curve that that "non-gay person" is on... its a steep learning curve (the learning curve of the concerned non-oppressed person trying to understand what it means to be a part of an oppressed community) Megan is a person of strong convictions who is trying hard to "get it" I have absolutely no doubt that she will. To be fair, Lots of gay people try this strategy (seperating the "good" gays from the "bad" gays in order to curry favor with the oppressor.) I see very clearly now how wrong it is... but I didn't always. I still maintain that this conversation has been a good use of my time. :love:

I tend to agree with you Dave, I think this certainly can be a very good lesson for everyone. The to-do is still going on here in the Bay Area. It once again made the front page of the S.F. Chronicle. kara

[dsdrane]

David, I've been on the learning curve that that "non-gay person" is on... its a steep learning curve (the learning curve of the concerned non-oppressed person trying to understand what it means to be a part of an oppressed community) Megan is a person of strong convictions who is trying hard to "get it" I have absolutely no doubt that she will. To be fair, Lots of gay people try this strategy (seperating the "good" gays from the "bad" gays in order to curry favor with the oppressor.) I see very clearly now how wrong it is... but I didn't always. I still maintain that this conversation has been a good use of my time. :love:

Dave, we've all been on that learning curve. Very few of us were born fabulous, getting it all from the get-go.

And, furthermore, far be it from me to argue that any of this has been a waste of your time.

What I'm arguing is that, for me and I suspect others, this particular learning curve is annoying.

You are a man of the cloth, as well as a heck of a nice guy; if you feel like holding a hand here and being patient, Godspeed.

I am not a man of the cloth, though I like to think a pretty nice guy (most of the time); and, as much as I need to respect your desire to be tolerant, I would also like to reserve the right to cry foul and get my Irish up.

By the way, I only coined the term "non-gay person" because Meghan always reminds us that she is not a member of the LGBT community and that she is only here to learn.

Or was it to instruct?

I forget.

[u-dog]

Dave, we've all been on that learning curve. Very few of us were born fabulous, getting it all from the get-go.

And, furthermore, far be it from me to argue that any of this has been a waste of your time.

What I'm arguing is that, for me and I suspect others, this particular learning curve is annoying.

You are a man of the cloth, as well as a heck of a nice guy; if you feel like holding a hand here and being patient, Godspeed.

I am not a man of the cloth, though I like to think a pretty nice guy (most of the time); and, as much as I need to respect your desire to be tolerant, I would also like to reserve the right to cry foul and get my Irish up.

By the way, I only coined the term "non-gay person" because Meghan always reminds us that she is not a member of the LGBT community and that she is only here to learn.

Or was it to instruct?

I forget.


You have my permission to get PISSED OFF !! I reserve the right to cluck my tongue and look on disapprovingly :D

My point is that we all start out clueless and gain clues as we go along. Sometimes the most useful clues get applied to the seats of our pants by the toes of other peoples boots. But if there is to be actual learning then there needs to be a person around who can help the kicked to understand the motivations of the kickers. Thats me. This has more to do with my parental identity than it does with my pastoral identity.


and BTW. If you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to piss me off? get my goat? yank my chain? Call me a "man of the cloth" GOD I HATE THAT :mad:

:love:

[BrentRichards]

and BTW. If you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to piss me off? get my goat? yank my chain? Call me a "man of the cloth" GOD I HATE THAT :mad:

:love:

He's more a "man of the organza" ... speaking of fabulous! What vestments!

[keltic63]

I am not a man of the cloth, though I like to think a pretty nice guy (most of the time); and, as much as I need to respect your desire to be tolerant, I would also like to reserve the right to cry foul and get my Irish up.




WHOA!!!!!! is that a racial slur? 4pm at the bike racks, Mr.!




oh, and "getting my Irish up" means something a little different around this household ;) http://www.fitness4.net/modules/Forums/images/smiles/banana.gif

[BrentRichards]

feather boas in ALL of the liturgical colors :cool:

Even in rose for the 3rd Sunday of Advent? THAT I've gotta see!

[andrewlittle]

oh, and "getting my Irish up" means something a little different around this household ;) http://www.fitness4.net/modules/Forums/images/smiles/banana.gif

Lest you think that your "little" double entendre got ignored, I just though I'd acknowledge it.

I assume you mean the short little Irish with the shiny head?

[keltic63]

Lest you think that your "little" double entendre got ignored, I just though I'd acknowledge it.

I assume you mean the short little Irish with the shiny head?

i don't know that I'd call him "short", but that bald head is well polished

[dsdrane]

First of all, I'M NOT PISSED!!

I'm annoyed.

There's a difference.

Second, there's nothing short or bald about my Irish!

(Not that that's a bad thing.)

Nor my Swedish, my Scottish, my Welsh, my English or my German.

(Well, maybe about my German, cuz they were from the south.)

(Swarthy little suckers they were.)

Bottom line: this ain't my first time at the rodeo...and my mamma didn't put me on this Earth to suffer fools gladly...or even politely.

Men of the organza/boas...maybe...but I ain't makin' any promises!

Harrumph!!

[Daniel]

First of all, I'M NOT PISSED!!

I'm annoyed.

There's a difference.


(He said with one eyebrowed raised and voice veering North)

I bet Dash would say that you've awfully handsome when you're angry.

[dsdrane]

(He said with one eyebrowed raised and voice veering North)

I bet Dash would say that you've awfully handsome when you're angry.

Daniel wants to know if you think I'm awfully handsome when I'm angry.

What!?

OK!

Ahem....

He says I am.