My upbringing was very Catholic. The clergy, faculty, administration and volunteering parents all regretted Vatican II, they were that conservative. They also tolerated and even encouraged the bullying and abuse that happened to me. I allowed all that to happen for so long because, firstly, I didn't know that anything else existed and, secondly, I thought that that's what God/Jesus/Mary/etc. wanted.
Then I went through a rebellious phase in which I hated all Christianity. This is very common as the atheist population grows (at least amongst the middle-and-higher classes). I never blamed God for everything that happened, to me, though; I just changed my concept of God. There's the argument, commonly used by militant atheists, that God can only be two out of these three qualities: omnipotent, all-good, omniscient. Ignoring the subjective meaning of "good," this argument excludes another quality: active.
My relationship with an inactive God ("God" just being the Western term for an unknowable, ultimate being/force/essence. Tao comes close to my concept) is separate from my relationship with Catholicism. There are still many questions I want answered about the terrors of my childhood. I continue to study Catholicism not only to uncover more answers, but also to find peace with Catholicism. It's highly unlikely that I'll ever "be" Catholic again, but being mad at it is a waste.
Catholicism has been successful for centuries for a very good reason: symbols, rituals and hierarchies are emotionally appealing in a chaotic environment. Many "nonbelievers" (future blog to come on belief) attend mass regularly because it can be a calming weekly ritual and it's pretty. I admit that, when I'm having a crazy week, the idea of attending a peaceful mass with my family sounds like a nice escape where I won't have to think. And it would help heal some old wounds.
It is possible, and maybe even healthy, for an ex-Catholic to find harmony with Catholicism. It's as big a character in my past as my parents; I've made peace in my relationship with the absence of my father, Catholicism is next.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
NO RESPECT for watering cans!
This morning, I was at the Belmont red/brown/purple line station, waiting for the bus to work. About five or six people were standing around, waiting for the bus. This guy with a watering can came up and announced "I got dibs on second place in line, ok? This watering can will hold my spot in line, ok?" We all just stared at him as he went into the station to make an angry phone call. Someone said "he must not be from Chicago..." I agree, this guy was definitely a tourist.
About five minutes later, the bus showed up a block down and the watering can guy was still inside the station on his phone. I went in and told him the bus was coming, he nodded but kept yelling into his phone. The bus pulled up and we all got on. He ran out and yelled at us, waving around his watering can, "Hey I got dibs! I'm second in line! DOESN'T ANYBODY HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR ANY HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ANYMORE?!?!?" Rofl wtf?!? I asked him where he's from, Lake Forest? He insisted that this bus-line holding was a Chicago tradition and that he had dibs. We all laughed at him and he didn't get on the bus, still clinging his watering can.
WTF?!?
NO RESPECT
About five minutes later, the bus showed up a block down and the watering can guy was still inside the station on his phone. I went in and told him the bus was coming, he nodded but kept yelling into his phone. The bus pulled up and we all got on. He ran out and yelled at us, waving around his watering can, "Hey I got dibs! I'm second in line! DOESN'T ANYBODY HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR ANY HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ANYMORE?!?!?" Rofl wtf?!? I asked him where he's from, Lake Forest? He insisted that this bus-line holding was a Chicago tradition and that he had dibs. We all laughed at him and he didn't get on the bus, still clinging his watering can.
WTF?!?
NO RESPECT
Friday, January 7, 2011
Changing Church
The Cardinals and others who appointed Ratzinger to be Pope did so in hopes that he would return the Catholic Church to a more conservative, insular status. Pope John Paul was, for Catholicism, very liberal and he made the Church more "worldly" as a way of genuinely helping more people of more backgrounds. Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, is just the opposite and has a strong background of being a dick. However, though he has made it his mission to de-secularize the Catholic community, he has made some small but rather drastic changes:
1) He forgave the Beatles for saying that they were bigger than Jesus. When John Lennon said that, he was saying that they were more popular than Jesus and, according to the thousands of people who thought that the Beatles could HEAL them, he was right. When Pope Benedict forgave the Beatles, while replacing Pope John Paul's "modern" music (Christian rock) with traditional Gregorian chanting, he took a large step into the mundane and secular world. Ringo Starr aptly pointed out that the Vatican has more important things to worry about.
2) The Church, for the past century, has been adamantly opposed to artificial birth control. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. It's a good little Catholic's mission to breed as many Catholics as possible and birth control impedes that. And because the Church is opposed to homosexuality, gay people shouldn't even be doing anything that would require birth control anyway. Pope Benedict, however, recently declared that birth control should be used as a safety measure in certain circumstances as long as it wouldn't prevent pregnancy. A gay prostitute should use a condom to protect himself from AIDS! Whoa!
3) Pope Benedict has now theorized that God was behind the Big Bang. This isn't a new concept, but it's a big deal for a Pope to concede that the science of how the universe came into being could be correct if God is behind it. Catholicism and science have never really gotten along, so this is another issue of Pope Benedict bridging the gap between the Church and the secular world.
The Church has been, for centuries, incredibly slow to change. Vatican II was uncharacteristic, to say the least, and took a monumental effort. In fact, the changes of Vatican II weren't as important as the fact that the Church admitted that it needed to change! That admittance was unprecedented in the oldest social organization existing today. Many people, clergy and lay and non-Catholic, have opined that a Vatican III should take place - especially considering the sex scandals. That's incredibly unlikely, even just considering how slowly the Church processes anything.
Pope Benedict's few changes, however, especially made by someone who was such a stalwart of Catholic elitism for so long, imply that more is going on within the Church than we know. If the hierarchy thought that they were desperate for new members in the 90's (see Sister Act 1 & 2), they must be flogging themselves now just to keep who they have. The sex scandals are turning away everyone except for the people who are too poor to have anything but the Church. The Pope's changes may seem trite to us, but they're drastic cries for help by the Church.
1) He forgave the Beatles for saying that they were bigger than Jesus. When John Lennon said that, he was saying that they were more popular than Jesus and, according to the thousands of people who thought that the Beatles could HEAL them, he was right. When Pope Benedict forgave the Beatles, while replacing Pope John Paul's "modern" music (Christian rock) with traditional Gregorian chanting, he took a large step into the mundane and secular world. Ringo Starr aptly pointed out that the Vatican has more important things to worry about.
2) The Church, for the past century, has been adamantly opposed to artificial birth control. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. It's a good little Catholic's mission to breed as many Catholics as possible and birth control impedes that. And because the Church is opposed to homosexuality, gay people shouldn't even be doing anything that would require birth control anyway. Pope Benedict, however, recently declared that birth control should be used as a safety measure in certain circumstances as long as it wouldn't prevent pregnancy. A gay prostitute should use a condom to protect himself from AIDS! Whoa!
3) Pope Benedict has now theorized that God was behind the Big Bang. This isn't a new concept, but it's a big deal for a Pope to concede that the science of how the universe came into being could be correct if God is behind it. Catholicism and science have never really gotten along, so this is another issue of Pope Benedict bridging the gap between the Church and the secular world.
The Church has been, for centuries, incredibly slow to change. Vatican II was uncharacteristic, to say the least, and took a monumental effort. In fact, the changes of Vatican II weren't as important as the fact that the Church admitted that it needed to change! That admittance was unprecedented in the oldest social organization existing today. Many people, clergy and lay and non-Catholic, have opined that a Vatican III should take place - especially considering the sex scandals. That's incredibly unlikely, even just considering how slowly the Church processes anything.
Pope Benedict's few changes, however, especially made by someone who was such a stalwart of Catholic elitism for so long, imply that more is going on within the Church than we know. If the hierarchy thought that they were desperate for new members in the 90's (see Sister Act 1 & 2), they must be flogging themselves now just to keep who they have. The sex scandals are turning away everyone except for the people who are too poor to have anything but the Church. The Pope's changes may seem trite to us, but they're drastic cries for help by the Church.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
It's been a month, I know
I'm at home, sick, and honestly can't shake a good blog out of my brain.
In the past month, though, I've given up on labels. Fuck 'em.
In the past month, though, I've given up on labels. Fuck 'em.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Gender Policing at its Finest
I work in a bookstore at a big, busy international airport and, thus, encounter many bizarre people. Bizarrely normal. The past two days, two irksome incidents occurred and they are more similar than may appear at the surface.
The other day, a straight, white, middle-aged, upper-middle-class man came in to the bookstore. He browsed around, then bought something by John Grisham or Vince Flynn or someone else along those lines. While I was ringing up the book, he rambled about the author; I was politely maintaining my end of the conversation "ok...yeah...uh-huh" He told me with an awed grin "you're very agreeable. That's rare in a woman." ...I'm sorry, what? I clamped my mouth shut as he left, not wanting to spew out what was on my mind. Like, maybe he's the disagreeable one!
Yesterday, a couple of the same mold as that guy fought in the bookstore. They made up by talking about their money. Yes. Then they checked out the magazines stacked next to me. Cher is on the cover of Vanity Fair, the text beside her saying "Cher on her daughter-turned-son, Chaz." The couple talked about how Chastity was turning into a man, had a sex change, etc. Not the most p.c., but not that bad. Then, they began referring to Chaz as "it." As politely as I could muster, I interrupted "excuse me, he is not an it." The husband acted like I wasn't there and the wife said "sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry" until I stopped talking. I look very androgynous myself, so they walked away muttering about me.
Had just one of these encounters occurred, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But the two in a 24-hour period are symptomatic. These three people of the same age and class, probably unknown to themselves, work as gender police. They probably had no idea that the messages they were conveying were that women should be agreeable and that transpeople are "it"s. They probably have never thought about it. Under different circumstances - the couple shut down immediately, especially - a simple discussion could have planted a seed.
The other day, a straight, white, middle-aged, upper-middle-class man came in to the bookstore. He browsed around, then bought something by John Grisham or Vince Flynn or someone else along those lines. While I was ringing up the book, he rambled about the author; I was politely maintaining my end of the conversation "ok...yeah...uh-huh" He told me with an awed grin "you're very agreeable. That's rare in a woman." ...I'm sorry, what? I clamped my mouth shut as he left, not wanting to spew out what was on my mind. Like, maybe he's the disagreeable one!
Yesterday, a couple of the same mold as that guy fought in the bookstore. They made up by talking about their money. Yes. Then they checked out the magazines stacked next to me. Cher is on the cover of Vanity Fair, the text beside her saying "Cher on her daughter-turned-son, Chaz." The couple talked about how Chastity was turning into a man, had a sex change, etc. Not the most p.c., but not that bad. Then, they began referring to Chaz as "it." As politely as I could muster, I interrupted "excuse me, he is not an it." The husband acted like I wasn't there and the wife said "sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry" until I stopped talking. I look very androgynous myself, so they walked away muttering about me.
Had just one of these encounters occurred, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But the two in a 24-hour period are symptomatic. These three people of the same age and class, probably unknown to themselves, work as gender police. They probably had no idea that the messages they were conveying were that women should be agreeable and that transpeople are "it"s. They probably have never thought about it. Under different circumstances - the couple shut down immediately, especially - a simple discussion could have planted a seed.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Homophobia, from Glee to Uganda
In a recent episode of Glee (if you're not a fan of the show, plow on anyway, this reference is brief), a lumbering jock bullied Kurt, the only openly gay character in the show. When Kurt confronted him in private, the bully kissed him and ran off. Chances are that the message of this episode isn't new to you: most violent homophobes are afraid of their own gayness and lash out to keep others from suspecting them. We've all seen this happen in politicians, religious leaders, and probably the homophobes in your own life.
Individual homophobes are usually pretty easy to figure out, particularly if you're of the school of thought that most people are at least a little bisexual/pansexual. And when a small group of homophobes band together, they're still rather transparent. Terrifying and even more difficult to turn over to the fabulous side, but transparent. And at least two of the people in the group probably have a steamy history anyway.
But then there are entire populations. Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson is retiring, the stress of all the constant death threats on his and his family's lives has become unbearable. I can't blame him. A message or two is alerting but not hard to deal with, but thousands? Maybe all those individuals alone are lashing out because of what they fear in themselves, but they, together, have made a horrifying force. How can anyone tolerate that?
Uganda is among the countries that consider homosexuality a capitol offense and a Ugandan newspaper recently released information of a hundred gay people. Violent homophobia on a national scale, gay genocide. I had the misfortune to see a video of a Ugandan “professor of homosexuality” lecture. The basic anatomy, stuff that you can check on your own body, that he taught was way off. Students, journalists and reporters still ate it up. Hatred on a national level involves poverty, miseducation, fear and propaganda.
From an individual to an entire nation, homophobia is still strong. Many people have claimed that, due to the recent increase in violence (or it's just getting reported more), homophobia is in its death throes. There is little comfort in that thought when a bishop must wear a bulletproof best beneath his consecration vestments. I wish I could come up with some kind of solution to homophobia, on any scale, but it's beyond me. We must, above all, though, accept our differences and work together.
Individual homophobes are usually pretty easy to figure out, particularly if you're of the school of thought that most people are at least a little bisexual/pansexual. And when a small group of homophobes band together, they're still rather transparent. Terrifying and even more difficult to turn over to the fabulous side, but transparent. And at least two of the people in the group probably have a steamy history anyway.
But then there are entire populations. Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson is retiring, the stress of all the constant death threats on his and his family's lives has become unbearable. I can't blame him. A message or two is alerting but not hard to deal with, but thousands? Maybe all those individuals alone are lashing out because of what they fear in themselves, but they, together, have made a horrifying force. How can anyone tolerate that?
Uganda is among the countries that consider homosexuality a capitol offense and a Ugandan newspaper recently released information of a hundred gay people. Violent homophobia on a national scale, gay genocide. I had the misfortune to see a video of a Ugandan “professor of homosexuality” lecture. The basic anatomy, stuff that you can check on your own body, that he taught was way off. Students, journalists and reporters still ate it up. Hatred on a national level involves poverty, miseducation, fear and propaganda.
From an individual to an entire nation, homophobia is still strong. Many people have claimed that, due to the recent increase in violence (or it's just getting reported more), homophobia is in its death throes. There is little comfort in that thought when a bishop must wear a bulletproof best beneath his consecration vestments. I wish I could come up with some kind of solution to homophobia, on any scale, but it's beyond me. We must, above all, though, accept our differences and work together.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
I'm too busy being FABULOUS!!
What's that? You disagree with my "lifestyle choice"? Oh and you voted for candidates who want to restrict gay and transgender rights? ...No, I won't respect your opinion!
See, queerdom doesn't actually hurt anyone. It doesn't cause harm, it doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms, and it makes the world a more fabulous place. The root of my "same-sex attraction" (which is all sorts of wrong) is none of your business, but I wouldn't change it if I had the opportunity.
Your "opinion" disrespects people who have done no ill. Oh, yeah, it's so great that you haven't ACTUALLY bullied anyone...you enable it. Anti-bullying legislation, employment and housing laws don't block your freedom to your opinion, they protect people from the destruction you allow. When you vote for candidates who want to remove that protections, you bring about more pain than anyone has just by being queer.
No, this isn't political and this isn't religious. This is cruelty.
See, queerdom doesn't actually hurt anyone. It doesn't cause harm, it doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms, and it makes the world a more fabulous place. The root of my "same-sex attraction" (which is all sorts of wrong) is none of your business, but I wouldn't change it if I had the opportunity.
Your "opinion" disrespects people who have done no ill. Oh, yeah, it's so great that you haven't ACTUALLY bullied anyone...you enable it. Anti-bullying legislation, employment and housing laws don't block your freedom to your opinion, they protect people from the destruction you allow. When you vote for candidates who want to remove that protections, you bring about more pain than anyone has just by being queer.
No, this isn't political and this isn't religious. This is cruelty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)