Image via Wikipedia
The recent debate here on QTC about demons and the demonic reminded me – in a serendipitous way – that we believe in a God who is maker of all, seen and unseen (visibilium omnium et invisibilium). That’s what we say in the Nicene Creed, and it’s fine by me if by invisible we’re referring to spiritual beings, angels and demons. What I object to is the move by certain sections of society, foremost among them the Catholic Church’s hierarchy, to consign LGBT folk to the category of the invisible. Let’s take Cardinal George’s recent comments about likening pride parades to the KKK marches. His remarks raised hell. And rightly so. I am aware of the fact that there are persons who think that the reaction by gay activists was exaggerated (AD’s contribution here in QTC reflects this position). What AD and others may fail to realise is that Cardinal George’s comment is no wild shot. I am glad that George has now retracted the remarks he made, and has gone some way toward recognising the existence of gay persons (he’s even admitted to possibly having family members who are gay – and yes he used that anathema word “gay”), but there’s still a long way to go. As a gay priest still in the active ministry I know all too well how crippling this policy of “not seeing” is. It works out in various ways. For example, how often have members of the Church hierarchy chosen to engage in a dialogue with gays and lesbians? More often than not, Church authorities talk about “them” (i.e. us), while refusing to listen to them/us. It’s as if, you know, we have nothing to say about something that directly affects us, and that is part and parcel of our life. Terry has quite recently written about his experience – and that of other prominent members in the Catholic gay caucus – when a conference about gay marriage was held in the UK. Gays, even those in civil unions and thus having a direct interest in the discussion, were barred from attending. Silence, non-engagement, not-seeing. Am I the only one who feels slighted by this attitude?
In part, this stance by the Church hierarchy is based on its unwillingness to recognise sexual orientation as a ground for identity and therefore non-discrimination (with other grounds such as sex, race, and religion). In every forum where issues of human rights are raised, and attempts are made to include sexual orientation as a ground for non-discrimination, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone wearing the white, red or purple hat is going to pounce on that proposition and prevent it from becoming part of the law. Clearly, they cannot stomach seeing gay rights being recognised as human rights. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise that sexual orientation is essential to identity, whether that orientation is hetero or homo. Relationships are essential to human flourishing, and foremost among these relationships are those based on erotic-affective attraction; two persons bond and become a couple. Just as straight couples express their love for each other in a myriad ways, and this love is transformed into a life plan, so also with gay couples – given the opportunity. Offended by semi-naked twinks strutting their stuff in a pride parade? Gays have been bashed and harassed for more mundane things: a gay couple simply holding hands, or sneaking a kiss in a public space seems to offend some persons too.
Which brings me to another thorny issue raised by AD in connection with the Chicago Pride Parade debacle: the offensiveness or otherwise of such parades. Have pride parades degenerated into freak-shows or a glorification of hedonism? While agreeing to some extent with AD’s point of view that some elements of the pride parade are too “in your face”, too offensive, and possibly warping the reality which is the LGBT community, I think we shouldn’t stop there. Admittedly, I’m definitely not partial to gym bunnies, and you won’t see me parading with just a fig leaf any time soon. But isn’t there more to these parades? Haven’t they become more mainstream, with more groups participating? In a number of cases the military and other organised corps are also represented. Obviously I’m not thinking about Folsom Street Fair here; I think that’s a case sui generis. What I am reflecting upon is the growing awareness that has been generated through such parades worldwide.
Image via Wikipedia
If in some western countries pride marches have lost their political edge – becoming more carnivalesque in the process – the same cannot be said elsewhere. Just look at the problems that arise whenever a pride march is organised in one of the countries in Eastern Europe (bearing in mind that a good number of these countries are now EU members). And we’ve barely scratched the surface if we were to include the Asian and African continents (bar South Africa), to say nothing of the Arab world.
If the media choose to focus on the wilder, weirder elements in pride marches around the world, then it’s up to them. That’s their job; they have a story to sell. But if persons like Cardinal George choose to be offended by what goes on in a pride parade, they can always look the other way. That’s what they’re doing the rest of the year, in any case, even when confronted with LGBT folk who aren’t doing their damnedest to look different. How many gay and lesbian couples with children have they met? How many openly gay, lesbian or trans people do they come in daily contact with? Homophobes will bring up any excuse to justify their behaviour, so there’s no point trying to play by their rules. It’s worth remembering, in conclusion, that the events that the first pride parades celebrated were none other than the Stonewall riots of June 1969. The gay patrons of the Stonewall bar – from the drag queens to the most straight-looking – decided that the only way out of this prison of silence, invisibility and shame was to stand up to those who harassed them. Their gains are my gains too.
