St. Paul the Apostle Catholic Church in NYC is hosting a Pride Mass this month across the street from Stonewall Inn. My life is pretty evenly divided between Catholics who're unfamiliar with LGBT pride/history, and "secular" queer people who've been pushed too far away from the Church to have any faith in it. Then there are a few of us trying to bridge the divide. This Pride Mass is St. Paul the Apostle Church bridging that divide. I'm going to attempt to explain the importance to both sides here.
Why LGBT Pride is important:
I went to Milwaukee PrideFest from 2005 through 2013, and the changes that happened there over those 8 years were absolutely incredible. The first few years photography was banned (this was before smartphones) because so many people were in the closet, protesters crowded outside, people came from around the state for the much-needed community. I knew a few teachers who feared that their participation at PrideFest would get out and they would lose their jobs. But as more celebrities came out, more conversation about LGBT rights happened on a national scale, more companies began sponsoring Pride events, more schools began getting gay-straight alliances, and more people came out, things began to change. The B52s, Cyndi Lauper, Joan Jett, and others came to perform at PrideFest! The last couple years, the only protester was a local joke who drag queens posed in front of for pictures. Child-friendly sections of the festival grounds opened, and people brought their kids! I interned at The Alliance School, a high school for LGBT kids who'd been bullied out of their schools, and they've been holding their graduation ceremonies at PrideFest for years!
There are still LGBT people getting kicked out of their homes by their parents, losing their jobs (especially under Christian employers), being beaten and killed and "corrective" raped. Compared to the rest of the population, a disproportionate number of LGBT people are incarcerated, homeless, and/or clinically depressed. Pride is community, culture, and history that both memorializes those we have lost and provides a safehaven away from that pain. I used Milwaukee PrideFest as an example because it shows precisely how LGBT communities can thrive through Pride in a way that couldn't happen without it.
Why Mass is important in this context:
Mass is when Catholics gather together and share Communion as a community of equals. Usually, the Bible readings leading up to Communion highlight God's presence in the poor, downtrodden, exiled, and despised. Communion is the epitome of that. "The body of Christ" refers to both the actual Eucharist and the people sharing it.
To have Mass across the street from Stonewall Inn (where Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson lead a protest against a violent police raid on the gay bar in 1969) is to acknowledge that the people there have that presence too. An explicitly LGBT Mass proclaims LGBT people as "the body of Christ."
This LGBT Pride Mass isn't a solution, it's a step in building a bridge. The Church has many more steps to take, but I think that explaining the details of this huge step to both sides might make building that bridge easier.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Sunday, May 20, 2018
System Racism and Domestic Abuse
As I've been trying to figure out systemic racism in the United States, I've begun to notice commonalities with domestic abuse. Both involve one party attaining power by taking power away from the other party, the grooming of both the prey and of peers in order to attain power more smoothly, the destruction of the prey's identity and resources and relationships, and putting the onus of reconciliation on the prey rather than on the predator. Although I've been working on this idea for months now, I haven't been certain enough of the parallels to put words to it.
What I've been hearing more and more often since the presidential election, particularly from people of color, particularly from Black people, is that the silver lining is how undeniable both overt and systemic racism have become. Racism in the United States is much more blatant now. At first I couldn't see how this development could possibly be good or helpful, but I shut my mouth and opened my ears. So many voices that know a lot more than I do have been saying this, there must be something to it.
It finally clicked for me when I realized the statement "at least X doesn't hit you" is no different from "racism ended with the civil rights movement." The most inconspicuous domestic abuse is the most effective domestic abuse - most people just don't know how to help or even believe someone who doesn't have bruises. In the same vein, the most inconspicuous racism (notice that it's most inconspicuous to the people who benefit most from it) has been the most pervasive racism. How often has it been argued "I can't be racist, I have a black friend" as though the perceived tolerance of one person excuses one's behavior? Fr. Bryan Massingale has spoken about the misconception of racism as an overt, clearly stated declaration. This misconception is both a product of and a contributing factor towards the systemic racism upon which the United States has been built.
In the same vein, domestic abuse that is not physically violent is rarely taken seriously in one's community. It's often brushed aside as a misunderstanding, all in the prey's head, or told "they don't really mean it." Spouses and children are usually told to try to please the person, usually someone in a position of authority, in order to mend the bond. This only draws more power to the abuser, who continues to benefit from the abuse. Prey who are unfamiliar with domestic abuse usually don't have words to describe what's happening to them, and can't/won't call it "abuse" simply because it isn't physical. Often only after the prey shows visible signs of physical abuse do schools, CPS, police, communities intercede - this is due partly to low resources, and partly to the easy deniability of abuse that is not physical.
Months ago, I thought I was going crazy for thinking that systemic racism is essentially domestic abuse on a large scale. Now I wonder if these macrocosms and microcosms are symptoms of a larger human problem?
What I've been hearing more and more often since the presidential election, particularly from people of color, particularly from Black people, is that the silver lining is how undeniable both overt and systemic racism have become. Racism in the United States is much more blatant now. At first I couldn't see how this development could possibly be good or helpful, but I shut my mouth and opened my ears. So many voices that know a lot more than I do have been saying this, there must be something to it.
It finally clicked for me when I realized the statement "at least X doesn't hit you" is no different from "racism ended with the civil rights movement." The most inconspicuous domestic abuse is the most effective domestic abuse - most people just don't know how to help or even believe someone who doesn't have bruises. In the same vein, the most inconspicuous racism (notice that it's most inconspicuous to the people who benefit most from it) has been the most pervasive racism. How often has it been argued "I can't be racist, I have a black friend" as though the perceived tolerance of one person excuses one's behavior? Fr. Bryan Massingale has spoken about the misconception of racism as an overt, clearly stated declaration. This misconception is both a product of and a contributing factor towards the systemic racism upon which the United States has been built.
In the same vein, domestic abuse that is not physically violent is rarely taken seriously in one's community. It's often brushed aside as a misunderstanding, all in the prey's head, or told "they don't really mean it." Spouses and children are usually told to try to please the person, usually someone in a position of authority, in order to mend the bond. This only draws more power to the abuser, who continues to benefit from the abuse. Prey who are unfamiliar with domestic abuse usually don't have words to describe what's happening to them, and can't/won't call it "abuse" simply because it isn't physical. Often only after the prey shows visible signs of physical abuse do schools, CPS, police, communities intercede - this is due partly to low resources, and partly to the easy deniability of abuse that is not physical.
Months ago, I thought I was going crazy for thinking that systemic racism is essentially domestic abuse on a large scale. Now I wonder if these macrocosms and microcosms are symptoms of a larger human problem?
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Feminine Genius
Whenever I've hear the term "feminine genius" in a Catholic setting, I've always felt like I'd heard it before but couldn't remember where. Finally, after hanging out with a bunch of Catholic menopausal women, it clicked.
My Catholic all-women's college library had a wealth of books about midwifery, menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, birth, and "feminine" bodily experiences altogether. Most of these had been written and self-published from the 70's through the mid-90's with a strong emphasis on herbal remedies. "Our Bodies, Ourselves" was perhaps the most groundbreaking as it was the first medical book that explained, among many other things (red flags of domestic abuse & how to survive it, for example), the realities of female bodies without telling said female bodies what they should do to fill a certain agenda. A few of these books used the term "feminine genius" to mean the treatment of "feminine" bodily changes - it's foolish to claim, these books argued, that any & all actions done by a mind within a "feminine" body would automatically be "feminine" acts. Obviously, this made an impression!
"Feminine genius" involved the wisdom of midwives & doulas, the easing of hot flashes, and methods to soothe the aching breast growth of pubescent, pregnant, and transgender women. "Feminine genius" didn't assume that someone who menstruates, miscarries, or goes through menopause will just automatically comprehend what's happening and deal with it in a vacuum. What I took away from these studies was primarily the knowledge of reusable menstrual products, although apparently much more has stayed with me.
I guess I had so thoroughly absorbed this understanding of "feminine genius" that I'd forgotten where I had first heard it. Discovering that the alternative use of the term, put forth by celibate men, excludes the "feminine genius" that I learned in college is sometimes like walking on an alien planet. Where are the cushioned seats for women going through menopause? Where is the outcry against disposable menstrual products that don't biodegrade? Where is the protection of preteen girls, not protection of their "purity," as their bodies change beyond their control?
Anything that proclaims "feminine genius" as a presumption of how all feminine people should be, rather than the realities lived by diverse feminine people, is not something I want a part of.
My Catholic all-women's college library had a wealth of books about midwifery, menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, birth, and "feminine" bodily experiences altogether. Most of these had been written and self-published from the 70's through the mid-90's with a strong emphasis on herbal remedies. "Our Bodies, Ourselves" was perhaps the most groundbreaking as it was the first medical book that explained, among many other things (red flags of domestic abuse & how to survive it, for example), the realities of female bodies without telling said female bodies what they should do to fill a certain agenda. A few of these books used the term "feminine genius" to mean the treatment of "feminine" bodily changes - it's foolish to claim, these books argued, that any & all actions done by a mind within a "feminine" body would automatically be "feminine" acts. Obviously, this made an impression!
"Feminine genius" involved the wisdom of midwives & doulas, the easing of hot flashes, and methods to soothe the aching breast growth of pubescent, pregnant, and transgender women. "Feminine genius" didn't assume that someone who menstruates, miscarries, or goes through menopause will just automatically comprehend what's happening and deal with it in a vacuum. What I took away from these studies was primarily the knowledge of reusable menstrual products, although apparently much more has stayed with me.
I guess I had so thoroughly absorbed this understanding of "feminine genius" that I'd forgotten where I had first heard it. Discovering that the alternative use of the term, put forth by celibate men, excludes the "feminine genius" that I learned in college is sometimes like walking on an alien planet. Where are the cushioned seats for women going through menopause? Where is the outcry against disposable menstrual products that don't biodegrade? Where is the protection of preteen girls, not protection of their "purity," as their bodies change beyond their control?
Anything that proclaims "feminine genius" as a presumption of how all feminine people should be, rather than the realities lived by diverse feminine people, is not something I want a part of.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Pew-fillers and the aftermath of Charlottesville
Since my return to the Catholic Church, I've noticed a large gap between the actively involved parishioners and those who sit in the pew until receiving Communion and then leaving until next Sunday.
Let me be clear. I am aware that many people can't be as involved as they might want to be. Family, career, or health demands get in the way; maybe their parish's ministries and social groups aren't welcoming, or they don't consider themselves skilled enough to participate further (you are!). Some people are active in ways that don't involve the parish proper, whether at home, volunteering, or academically.
It stunned me the first few times parishioners told me "it's great that you're so involved. I don't even listen to the homily, I just come for Communion." Why?! Maybe it just isn't in me to take every part of the Church for granted since I was away for so long. In fact, I took it for granted that everyone there is there because they want to be there 100% - not just to sit in a pew for an hour a week. I'm there largely to make sure that the things that drove me away don't happen to anyone else. It's been struggle for me over the past few months to just let pew-fillers be rather than exhausting myself over attempts to motivate them.
Since the white supremacist "rally" at Charlottesville, many white Catholic bishops, priests, educators, women religious, and activists have spoken out against white supremacy. How much action is behind these words varies, and I'm trying to remain realistically optimistic - pessimism is not a motivator. Complaints from Catholics, generally those who're disillusioned from Catholic institutions altogether, point to the bishops and priests who have gone about business as usual. These passionate Catholics call to mind Rev. Bryan Massingale, Sr. Thea Bowman, Dr. Diana L. Hayes, and the dozens of Black Catholics who have been calling out the Church in America for its inaction and ignorance for decades.
I worry that the division between Catholics who work to dismantle white supremacy, and "business as usual" white Catholics is widening to the point that the latter group will intermingle with racist Catholics. And I wonder if that division lines up at all with the gap between active Catholics and pew-fillers. Ultimately, I worry that the passionate Catholics working to dismantle white supremacy will eventually become so disillusioned that they (we?) will leave altogether. And then who will be left?
Let me be clear. I am aware that many people can't be as involved as they might want to be. Family, career, or health demands get in the way; maybe their parish's ministries and social groups aren't welcoming, or they don't consider themselves skilled enough to participate further (you are!). Some people are active in ways that don't involve the parish proper, whether at home, volunteering, or academically.
It stunned me the first few times parishioners told me "it's great that you're so involved. I don't even listen to the homily, I just come for Communion." Why?! Maybe it just isn't in me to take every part of the Church for granted since I was away for so long. In fact, I took it for granted that everyone there is there because they want to be there 100% - not just to sit in a pew for an hour a week. I'm there largely to make sure that the things that drove me away don't happen to anyone else. It's been struggle for me over the past few months to just let pew-fillers be rather than exhausting myself over attempts to motivate them.
Since the white supremacist "rally" at Charlottesville, many white Catholic bishops, priests, educators, women religious, and activists have spoken out against white supremacy. How much action is behind these words varies, and I'm trying to remain realistically optimistic - pessimism is not a motivator. Complaints from Catholics, generally those who're disillusioned from Catholic institutions altogether, point to the bishops and priests who have gone about business as usual. These passionate Catholics call to mind Rev. Bryan Massingale, Sr. Thea Bowman, Dr. Diana L. Hayes, and the dozens of Black Catholics who have been calling out the Church in America for its inaction and ignorance for decades.
I worry that the division between Catholics who work to dismantle white supremacy, and "business as usual" white Catholics is widening to the point that the latter group will intermingle with racist Catholics. And I wonder if that division lines up at all with the gap between active Catholics and pew-fillers. Ultimately, I worry that the passionate Catholics working to dismantle white supremacy will eventually become so disillusioned that they (we?) will leave altogether. And then who will be left?
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Presenting "faith journey" aka existential crisis
Every Sunday from now until January, I'm meeting with a group of Catholic women for personal formation, community discipleship, and event planning. We will facilitate a women's spiritual retreat after our last meeting. The dozen of us went through the same retreat last month, facilitated by women who had met together all of last year.
Event planning is well-rehearsed. Community discipleship is new to me in terms of spirituality, but otherwise not that different from my experiences in other goal-oriented groups. Alverno College prepared me well for both of these.
The primary way that personal formation is achieved through these meetings is through a half hour presentation, followed by "affirmations" from the rest of the group. Most of the retreat consisted of these presentations, edited and refined throughout last year's meetings, and then reflections on them both alone and in small groups. The two leaders of my group, seasoned facilitators, will give their presentations again and then give some light guidance while we dozen prepare our own.
These presentations will focus on each individual's personal "faith journey," how each person got to where we are now. Guidelines are loose, though based on the presentations at the retreat most of these women speak almost exclusively about their relationships with their parents, their husbands, and their children.
It's only been a day and a half since the first meeting and I've already turned this into a full-on existential crisis! Go me! I'm such an overachiever! I signed up to be one of the first presenters partly so I won't have to think about it for more than a month, and partly + selfishly so I can give a little lesson about good public speaking skills right away (if one more person clicks her tongue after every sentence, I'm going to scream). The more I think about my journey the more I delve into gender and feminist theory, liberation theology, and nihilism vs. existentialism. This sums up my progress thusfar ("ppl" = people):
Here is this unusual opportunity to talk about myself openly before a group for a half hour, and... this is very cheesy... if I talk about theory, then who am I? If my developing plan to speak about my journey consists mostly of concepts that exist outside of me, then what does that say about me? The debate and contemplation of these ideas will continue after me, the same can't be said about relationships (I wonder how many people identify through their relationships out of a fear of mortality?). But if I end up impacting these studies through academia, does that reflect on the quality/value of my life? If I don't, does that imply failure?
It's not that people, places, and events aren't important to me, I just can't imagine filling up more than 15 minutes with talking about only them as a reference to my self. But these concepts, I could - and do! - go on and on and on.
At the first meeting the other day, each person summarized their personal goal as an individual in the group for the year. Mine was "be an agent of change." That tends to be my goal/role in Catholic communities altogether, and it's what I hope to achieve through grad school (next year???). The retreat highlighted how alone I feel as a whole human being in these communities and I don't expect that to change as long as I aim to facilitate change. I'm just not certain what it says about me as a whole human being presenting oneself through theory.
Event planning is well-rehearsed. Community discipleship is new to me in terms of spirituality, but otherwise not that different from my experiences in other goal-oriented groups. Alverno College prepared me well for both of these.
The primary way that personal formation is achieved through these meetings is through a half hour presentation, followed by "affirmations" from the rest of the group. Most of the retreat consisted of these presentations, edited and refined throughout last year's meetings, and then reflections on them both alone and in small groups. The two leaders of my group, seasoned facilitators, will give their presentations again and then give some light guidance while we dozen prepare our own.
These presentations will focus on each individual's personal "faith journey," how each person got to where we are now. Guidelines are loose, though based on the presentations at the retreat most of these women speak almost exclusively about their relationships with their parents, their husbands, and their children.
It's only been a day and a half since the first meeting and I've already turned this into a full-on existential crisis! Go me! I'm such an overachiever! I signed up to be one of the first presenters partly so I won't have to think about it for more than a month, and partly + selfishly so I can give a little lesson about good public speaking skills right away (if one more person clicks her tongue after every sentence, I'm going to scream). The more I think about my journey the more I delve into gender and feminist theory, liberation theology, and nihilism vs. existentialism. This sums up my progress thusfar ("ppl" = people):
It's not that people, places, and events aren't important to me, I just can't imagine filling up more than 15 minutes with talking about only them as a reference to my self. But these concepts, I could - and do! - go on and on and on.
At the first meeting the other day, each person summarized their personal goal as an individual in the group for the year. Mine was "be an agent of change." That tends to be my goal/role in Catholic communities altogether, and it's what I hope to achieve through grad school (next year???). The retreat highlighted how alone I feel as a whole human being in these communities and I don't expect that to change as long as I aim to facilitate change. I'm just not certain what it says about me as a whole human being presenting oneself through theory.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Liberation Theology vs Prosperity Theology
Before I delve into the boundaries between the two, I will first briefly define them:
Liberation theology centralizes around oppressed people freeing themselves. Scripture passages that highlight liberation of the poor and marginalized bolster this movement, namely the story of Jesus Christ as told in the gospels. Oscar Romero, James H. Cone, and Diana L. Hayes are among the most prominent names in liberation theology. South American and Black religious communities are the strongest proponents of liberation theology, interweaving womanism (black women prioritizing the equality of black women among both race and gender lines) and mujeristas (Latinas working to liberate both the poor and oppressed in their culture, as well as their culture overall against colonial influences).
Prosperity theology prioritizes the embracing of God-given gifts, namely material gifts. The idea is that God has given the faithful these gifts, and it would be ungrateful to give away those gifts - charity, according to prosperity theology, is against God's will. There are communities, though, who do emphasize giving in order to receive, but the giving is almost exclusively to leaders who are already wealthy. Joel Osteen is the most famous proponent, and he is in good company with Southern charismatic churches and other televangelists. Almost all of these are white, with almost no references to any of the gospels.
I am by no means the first person to connect the Trump administration and its supporters to prosperity theology (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). "Make America Great Again" has never included greatness for anyone who benefits from liberation theology - the declaration of making Mexico pay for a wall dividing the nation from the United States makes this clear, among many other points.
Although I may prioritize the liberation of oppressed people, especially in the face of the oncoming administration, it is not about me. After all, it is because of my platform as an able-bodied white person that I can put forward liberation theology with reasonable expectation of being received by other able-boded white people. It is up to me to use the benefits I systemically receive from prosperity theologians, now that they are coming into their greatest political power yet, to work towards this liberation while also understanding that it is from these systems, including my role in them, that oppressed people must be liberated. It is up to me to keep in mind these intersections while also understanding that I, no matter how hard I work, am not separate from the ivory tower that is prosperity theology.
Diana L. Hayes described it better than I could. In her connection between womanism and liberation theology, she said that it would be logically inconsistent for her to work with feminists (see: white) because it is from us (see: white) that she must be liberated.
Liberation theology centralizes around oppressed people freeing themselves. Scripture passages that highlight liberation of the poor and marginalized bolster this movement, namely the story of Jesus Christ as told in the gospels. Oscar Romero, James H. Cone, and Diana L. Hayes are among the most prominent names in liberation theology. South American and Black religious communities are the strongest proponents of liberation theology, interweaving womanism (black women prioritizing the equality of black women among both race and gender lines) and mujeristas (Latinas working to liberate both the poor and oppressed in their culture, as well as their culture overall against colonial influences).
Prosperity theology prioritizes the embracing of God-given gifts, namely material gifts. The idea is that God has given the faithful these gifts, and it would be ungrateful to give away those gifts - charity, according to prosperity theology, is against God's will. There are communities, though, who do emphasize giving in order to receive, but the giving is almost exclusively to leaders who are already wealthy. Joel Osteen is the most famous proponent, and he is in good company with Southern charismatic churches and other televangelists. Almost all of these are white, with almost no references to any of the gospels.
I am by no means the first person to connect the Trump administration and its supporters to prosperity theology (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). "Make America Great Again" has never included greatness for anyone who benefits from liberation theology - the declaration of making Mexico pay for a wall dividing the nation from the United States makes this clear, among many other points.
Although I may prioritize the liberation of oppressed people, especially in the face of the oncoming administration, it is not about me. After all, it is because of my platform as an able-bodied white person that I can put forward liberation theology with reasonable expectation of being received by other able-boded white people. It is up to me to use the benefits I systemically receive from prosperity theologians, now that they are coming into their greatest political power yet, to work towards this liberation while also understanding that it is from these systems, including my role in them, that oppressed people must be liberated. It is up to me to keep in mind these intersections while also understanding that I, no matter how hard I work, am not separate from the ivory tower that is prosperity theology.
Diana L. Hayes described it better than I could. In her connection between womanism and liberation theology, she said that it would be logically inconsistent for her to work with feminists (see: white) because it is from us (see: white) that she must be liberated.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Millennials leaving religion
I was just listening to the "Keep the Church Weird" lecture by Rachel Held Evans and it was like lightening struck.
Rachel Held Evans says what I've been saying for years: evangelizing to millennials does not work because we have learned to avoid anything that seems to be an advertisement. Advertising is cheap and shallow, the exact opposite of what spirituality and religion should be. And I've not been the only person who's been saying this, Kaya Oakes made similar points in her book "The Nones Are Alright." Those who say they are "spiritual but not religious" leave many parts of mainstream religion behind including the contemporary commercialism, and this departure is largest among millennials.
Think of how mainstream American culture treated millennials in the late 90's, when we were in middle school. The Spice Girls, N SYNC, the Backstreet Boys, Tiger Beat magazine, claire's, etc. Because the young adults at that time had both expendable income and a modicum of autonomy unseen in previous generations, we were targeted in advertising unlike ever before. This was also when "NeoWicca" became popular among young adults, and became increasingly commercial. Perhaps the Spice Girls are the best example of how extremely millennials were marketed to; the idea of a commercial girl group was formed in order to compete in pop music, and then women auditioned to fill those roles (source). Advertising became more obvious as well, with the celebrities most popular among young millennials blatantly flaunting their sponsors' logos. The film Josie & the Pussycats highlighted this in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
All of this advertising worked well when we were 10-15. I argue that the trend of wearing things "ironically" in the late 00's was a way of maturing out of that. "I got this Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirt out of a dumpster, I'm wearing it ironically." The idea of actually supporting popular brands was so odious that millennial hipsters made it blatantly obvious that wearing those brands was a joke. And if you were not in on the joke, that meant you were a sell-out.
So what does this mean for the religious bodies so desperate to bring the millennials back to their churches? The techniques that worked so well for big name brands in the late 90's worked then, but not now. The techniques that existed ("worked" is an inappropriate term for a social trend that denied efficiency) ten years ago won't work now.
Frankly I don't know what will bring millennials back to the churches. But working harder at enticing us back than at sincere service to the poor is certainly not the way to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)