Will don't ask, don't tell go in the church too?
By Mark Vernon on Saturday, July 23 2011, 08:53 - In the news - Permalink
Don't ask, don't tell will go in the US military. Which prompted me to wonder how long it will take in that other institution that finds homosexuality so difficult to bear, the church.
Well, what made homosexuality so difficult in the military? Michel Foucault made an observation that is illuminating.
He argued that the problem of homosexuality is keenly felt in institutions that seek closely to manage the interpersonal relationships of the individuals within them. They do so for good reasons. In the military, camaraderie must be cultivated to such an extent that one person be prepared to die for another. Homosexual love leads to similarly intense relationships though ones that float free of military discipline. It's this outlaw status - being as powerful but outside of the condoned form for same-sex relationships - that has made the military so fearful, Foucault argued.
Obama's statement seems to support that analysis. It implies that homosexuality is no longer seen as such a threat to order and cohesion. It doesn't undermine camaraderie. Homosexuality has lost its erotic, anarchic mystique.
That is not yet the majority feeling in the church - at least amongst its leaders, for whom it is not military order that matters but social order, they feeling themselves to be the guardians-in-chief of social order. Homosexuality is still feared for what it would do, if unleashed, to the institutional forms of love that the church so keenly seeks to manage, namely the family.
Seeking to manage the family is not going to change. It reaches deeply into the Jewish roots of Christianity. Plus, religions that have grown enamoured with proximity to power know that their USP is providing a moral cement for the 'building blocks' of society.
But perhaps something else will shift: homosexuality will lose its erotic mystique here too. You can certainly see how conservative strategies attempt to preserve it. The artificial separation of orientation from practice, for example, works to ensure that this mysterious activity called 'practice' maintains an air of dangerousness, inscrutability, subversion.
Homosexuality is different. But it's not dangerous. What conservatives refuse to countenance is the possibility that gay people love each other in ways analogous to how straight folk do. When that's seen, don't ask, don't tell seems silly, not necessary.
Comments
I appreciate your last sentiment. Contrary to many of my Christian friends, I think a healthy monogamous homosexual relationship is about as valuable as a heterosexual one. It seems the Christians I know simply cannot get over the same-sex bit. Even if a homosexual marriage were a better model of Christ's love than heterosexual one, they probably prefer the heterosexual one because it is not same-sex. I am not sure if their judgment is based upon yuk factor or a fear of losing the ability to manage their idea of "family" or rule-based thinking or some combination. Whatever the case, the judgment does not represent the best thinking.
An aside: I think some churches are already operating under the don't ask, don't tell policy, and some are on their way by utilizing a sort of "don't think about it, don't practice" policy. And then there are the hyper-conservatives...
Mark:
For me, the interesting frontline of acceptance in Christianity is the Catholic Church. At the moment, the official Vatican party line still sees homosexuality as essentially analogous with an illness (reflecting the Vatican's usual slow rate of change in beliefs i.e. this is essentially a 1950s perspective on gay issues). But the chatter among the Catholic theologians and philosophers all points to a restructuring on these issues - Charles Taylor explicitly proposes a need for reformation in issues such as these, for instance. Change doesn't happen under the watch of a "caretaker Pope", but sooner or later there will be a radical shift, and it will be a key step towards wider acceptance of gay people within Christianity.
Part of the problem is a caricature of the gay lifestyle that is constructed statistically, one that makes it seem as if being gay is synonymous with licentious sexual debauchery. Certainly, there is a part of contemporary gay culture that embraces this kind of sexual freedom, but it is equally certain that this cultural niche is not the whole story. There are plenty of gay men and women in stable, loving long term relationships - not to mention with their own families - and when this can be brought into perspective it will become harder for mainstream Christianity to reject homosexuality. In some respects, getting these stories in wider circulation is part of the 'battle' right now.
I also think that there is a catch-22 in so much that the explicit condemnation by Christian hardliners places the gay culture (or counter-culture?) in direct conflict with "the Church", perceived as a monolithic entity. Playing up this divide is counterproductive, yet plenty of gay spokepeople (especially on the internet) insist on writing as if religion is equivalent to gay bashing. This angry knee jerk reaction is terribly counterproductive for the wider acceptance that is supposed to be their goal.
The hardliners will not shift their views, neither should they have to - if we uphold freedom of belief, we have to allow bigots their perspective no matter how much we disagree with them. But some cultural disarmament is needed to resolve the tensions between the gay culture and Christianity, and some of the onus in this regard rests on gay advocates to ease down on their hatred for religion. When you look into the mirror in rage, you will see your anger reflected.
Well, didn't mean to write so long a comment, but there you go. :) *waves from Seattle*
Good points, yes.
Did Foucault heard of that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred...
Who was it that said of barriers to allowing gays in the military: "They're willing to die--that's enough."
It seems to me that the Catholic Church will not, in our lifetime accept homosexuals as equals to their heterosexual brethren.
I do not see the church as becoming more open and accepting, I see them becoming more closed and conservative. I have been a member of the church for 55 years. As of this March, I could not longer in good conscience, continue in the church. I have been waiting, watching and hoping that the church will change in regards to woman and gays. Recently, NY state voted to allow gay marriage. A letter from the Bishop, read during Mass was sent to me by a friend. If that is the accepted thinking of the church, there is little hope that the church will accept gay marriage or accept that homosexual lifestyle.
I'm not sure I understand where the idea that "Change doesn't happen under the watch of a "caretaker Pope", but sooner or later there will be a radical shift, and it will be a key step towards wider acceptance of gay people within Christianity." as stated by Chrisbateman in the above post. I have seen no evidence of the above.
I see a church that is fundamentally unable to change.
I, too, am pessimistic that the church will change its stance on homosexuality. Their whole point is that God's word and Chrisitianity is UNchanging over the centuries. To change their stance, however couched in nice words of 'new revelation' or whatever, will be taken as a change. Therefore, if the church can change its views on gays, then nothing it says can ever be trusted as the Truth.
In other words, they have staked out a position so far to one side, so adamantly, that to make any change at all risks undermining everything they stand for.
And I believe that they are comfortable with this position. Sure, there will always be agitators, but does the hierarchy really care? No institution is as rich as the Vatican -- they have so much wealth it can't be counted. The church could diminish by a factor of 100 and the Vatican dwellers will live in comfort and prestige forever.
They aren't stupid -- they have read the handwriting that has been on the wall since Luther, which is that they are no longer the only game in town. Church attendance is shrinking in many parts of the world, but growing in others. It is shrinking in the prosperous west, and there really is nothing they can do about it. They've tried and failed, and so they plan on giving up. The church will continue to grow is some areas, such as latin america, africa and asia, and it is growing while they hold nothing but contempt for gays.
So -- why change? It won't get them any more converts in the west, and could upset their plans for growth elsewhere.
The chance that the Catholic Church will change its teaching concerning homosexuality is, at most, zero. Under intense pressure in the 1960s to condone artificial contraception (which, the Church understands (even if others don't), homosexualizes heterosexual sex by sterilizing it), Pope Paul VI issued Humane Vitae. In the late 1970s Pope John Paul II initiated a four year series of general audiences that developed the catechesis now known as the Theology of the Body, which deeply ingrains into Church teaching a view of sexuality that is antithetical to the ideologies that have given us artificial contraception, abortion, and same sex marriage. While liberal Westerners may see the rise of same sex marriage as vindication of their view of sexuality, rest assured that the Church sees same sex marriage and the related social trends of the last 40 years as quite the opposite. Paul Paul VI predicted in Humanae Vitae that artificial contraception would lead to promiscuity and the disintegration of the family. He was right. This is one reason, among many others, that Humanae Vitae is seen by Catholics as a prophetic document. The current social trends throw into greater relief the wisdom of the Church's teachings concerning sexuality, and thereby enable faithful Catholics to see ever more clearly the wisdom of those teachings.
Dan, What "catholic" "wisdom" in relation to the all important matters of emotional-sexual maturity and responsibility?
I am 60 years of age and have never ever met a single person who learnt any REAL Wisdom re emotional-sexual matters during their formative years, or in most cases, during their life altogether.
Such was also the the case with EVERY one ever lived in previous generations, and almost EVERY one who is now alive.
In Truth & Reality the "catholic" church has bequeathed the entire world a deeply puritanical double-minded misunderstanding of the nature of the body and the emotional-sexual dimensions of our being-existence.
A misunderstanding which is the ROOT cause of all of our seemingly intractable social problems, including the now ever present threat of global terrorism (most of which is created by fundamentalist religionists in all parts of the world, and from all cultures), and the current very real environmental crisis.
If one wants to learn how to master any and every aspect of ordinary and extraordinary living, one quite rightly finds a teacher who has mastered the whatever topic and its necessary related disciplines.
In the case of the "catholic" church the presumed "authorities" on the all important topic of emotional-sexuality are celibate priests, who have never done "it", and have certainly never made love to our with a woman. How absurd!
I would argue that there are many factors (other than the use of contraception) which have lead to the disintegration of both the family, and everything else. Primarily the anti-"culture" of competitive individualism (the war of all against against all) in which every one has inevitably lost - including the presumed winners.
And what about the dark side of traditional "catholic" "morality" which has now been brought to light by the events in Ireland?
Which is of course a pattern and phenomenon which has inevitably occurred all over the world.
The new book by Matthew Fox titled The Pope's War: Why Ratzinger's Secret Crusade Has Imperiled the Church, gives a very detailed description of the dark realities behind the public facade of "holiness" promoted by both Ratzinger and the previous pope.
You might like to check out this book which, among other things, has a chapter which features a very frank and open discussion re the use of contraceptives, in which the author recommends the use of non-toxic barrier contraceptives in every intimate occasion.
http://www.dabase.org/small.htm
Also comprehensive essays on our emotional-sexual self Understanding via:
http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch...