Thursday, August 11, 2011

Stupidest. Article. Ever.

Some of you may have seen this already, but it's just so egregious it has to be pointed out.

Extreme homophobic prejudice and caricatures permeate Verrecchio's article. Including, right off the bat, insinuating that homosexuality is the cause of child abuse. Now, we can't deny that statistics indicate a certain disproportion there (about 1/3rd of abuse cases are same-sex, even though homosexuals are definitely not 1/3rd of the total population), especially in the priesthood. But when girls are abused (as is still true in the majority of cases in society at large) is anyone going to claim that heterosexuality is at fault!? Obviously not, and besides, there is simply the fact that sexually predatory behavior has been shown to be a different and largely independent phenomenon from normal sexual orientation; for example, many male abusers of boys prefer women when it comes to their tastes in adults, and there are even gay men (in terms of adult orientation) who abuse little girls.

But, though the scapegoating of homosexuals in the sex abuse crisis is disgusting and cowardly on the part of conservatives, and though his psycho-pathologizing of it as narcissistic, symptomatic of masculine gender insecurity, and emotional neediness is likewise reprehensible (did he ever stop to think that maybe the emotional problems or affectations of homosexuals are not intrinsic to it, but rather the result of social homophobia, heterosexist constructions of manhood, etc??) those aren't even the dumbest things in this article. The dumbest thing is his thesis that there is a correlation between homosexuality and progressive liturgy and liturgical abuse. To this...anyone in the know can only say: ha!

I have been surprised, or perhaps not-so-surprised upon considering it, that my blog attracts a particular crowd, that there are a variety of tropes that keep popping up among readers who contact me. And I'm proud of that; this is really a blog for outsiders, after all, and hearing people's different experiences has been great. The point is: I can tell you, most gay Catholics I have now met (both orthodox/celibate and not) are trad-leaning, and there are clearly many homosexuals (if often closeted) in trad-land. Does Verrecchio not know of the trope of the "liturgy queen"???

In this case, a generic lumping of various types of progressivism into a single bogeyman just doesn't work out and is demonstrably absurd. The situation is much more nuanced and complicated than that, and in the current system of alliances there are some very surprising bedfellows (no pun intended...)

5 comments:

LM said...

As your post alludes, traditional single environments tend to breed a homoerotic or homosocial environment. This is why homosexuality among both genders in the British middle and upper classes was once considered to be a phase that one passed through in boarding school and later outgrew. The odd thing is that these hothouse same-sex environments are exactly what many conservatrads are trying to bring back. Individuals like Verrecchio seem to think that all homosexuals must of the the Dan Savage variety and are personally out to get them, whether in the form of sexual abuse or bad liturgies. Hysterical articles like that do a disservice to everyone involved.

Anonymous said...

“The insecurity inherent to SSA could also predispose the homosexual cleric to seek the approval of the laity by treating the liturgy as performance or by otherwise calling attention to himself."
Thank goodness this cannot be done by decking oneself out in yards of lace and gold vestments, and standing at an altar miles high surrounded by incense while some guy repeatedly kisses your hand (and your hat).

Anonymous said...

Gay prefer traditional liturgy, for the same reasons they dress well.

Mike L. said...

This is so pathetic. Catholics without a professional training/licensing in psychology making broad judgmental analyses of people whom they probably know little about statistically and personally. What does the average Sunday-going Joe-Schmoe Catholic know about the REAL issues and problems in the everyday lives of priests in the parish? In short, nothing.

Rather, he is probably too scared to even go talk to the priest personally or get to know him as a friend -- or he is afraid of his own guilt, or he feels the priest's life is too far removed from his own or religiously-oriented that it would be awkward.

The real issue here, especially with regards to liturgy (if one wants to make some intelligent connections) is the failure of the laity to STEP UP and demand the changes that they want directly -- by getting involved in the parish, asserting their rights and fighting the local battles. Rather, it is just easier to simply sit in the pews on Sunday and make uninformed conjectures about their visions of things and how they feel things should be going.

Pathetic. This article betrays a vast ignorance, but which is probably (and sadly) held by many, many "privately" thinking and worshipping Catholics. This simply shows a huge lack of Catholic parish and community involvement, or sense of Church universal, above all else.

STEP UP!

Fr. Sean Lotz said...

Oh my goodness. Has Verrecchio never seen a priest vested in a lace alb before? If openly homosexual clergy wore those monstrosities (or if the style preferences were reversed, and the lacey vestments were used by modernists), he would offer that as proof of their degenerate effeminacy. And I think he would have a point.

(Ha! My word verification is "queanted" Queen Ted?)