One of the issues that irks me here to a minor degree is that essentially an extension of a the church is being lambasted for sticking to their principals and beliefs. Not only that but their main detractors are groups that openly promote respect and tolerance for alternative lifestyles. Christianity and religion in general are lifestyles. Are these to be an exception that proves the rule?
The problem--and the critique I'm about to write also applies to my own quickly written post, above!--the Catholic church is not a monolith; no social institution is, especially one as big as the worldwide Roman Catholic Church. There are not just many "ex-catholics" in the world who disagree with the decisions made by the "top brass" in the church, but people who are struggling to remain Catholic AND glbt or pro-glbt rights. See, for instance, Dignity USA's website, especially their faqs, which deal, in a nutshell form with the ways that Christianity and even Catholicism is an organic, evolving changing entity--a domain in which competing interests are constantly seeking some dominance.
I'm not someone who believes "all lifestyles should be tolerated." For one thing, I hate the word "lifestyle." I believe that bigoted groups should be actively resisted and forced to change. We have this idea that lack of power=innocence=good. I'm pretty sure that's a foolish equation.
Here's a woman I like--Ladelle McWhorter, a Foucault scholar:
"Opposition . . . involves a great deal more tha resistance. Resistance is merely negative, a no to domination. Opposition involves something positive, a departure from dominating networks. It involves the production of a different sort of self and a different sort of community--selves and communities not bound by the dictates of sexual identification. But, much as we might like to stop there with the affirmation of creativity, this project involves even more than our most creative work. Hard as it is just to begin to build a culture and a sense of self counter to what the dominant society seeks to impose, that emerging sense of self will not be enough--because they will not be allowed to flourish. Counterattack against sexual regimes of power is--inevitably and obviously--attack. It entails more and less violent assault on sexual practices and institutions and, yes, even the people who believe their lives depend on them--institutions like compulsory heterosexuality, the modern oedipal family, enforced sex roles and gender identification, and sex discrimination of all kinds. Those institutions and people will fight us, and the fire power is mainly on their side. We must not pretend that they do not have to be fought. And, indeed, if we succeed in destroying or dismantling or even seriously altering the institutions that they hold dear, their injuries will be very real. Counterattack can never be innocent. . . . opposition entails exercising power over other people to force them to allow us to do our self-transformative work. If we are going to undertake seriously to oppose the regimes that oppress us, we have to think about all these things--resistance to domination, the pleasures and disciplines of cultural and self-transformation, AND the exercise of power over other people. All these things will have to figure into our style . . ."
I'm interested in this, and interested in what folks here think...
alas. |
