Thursday, 19 September 2019

The Dramaclergy of Marriage

Trigger warning: If you're offended by the adolescent usage of the word "gay", a word, like so many, fraught with dubious etymology, read no further. [Irony alert: as if such a trigger warning does not guarantee counter-triggering a wilful search for the promise of upset.]

I don't get it. If anybody ever knew that marriage was totally fucking gay, it would be ones who stage the centerpiece to the presentation, the wedding.


Before getting on directly with the subject at the link, allow me to parse my apparently tasteless satire: Gay means happy, not yet in the pejorative sense. Gay means festive. Gay means, "Hey, we're festive, let's be 'gay'!" still not pejorative. Gay means like a people who either chose for themselves or had chosen for them and eventually appropriated or accepted the attribution and appellation, perhaps related in some way to a recognized affinity for festivity. Gay means that festive shit gay people like. Gay means that shit you know the gays do. Gay means any and all things one can imagine in a pejorative sense that the last two meanings might inspire. Gay means, like so much utterance, the ironic version of any or all of the above, either self-effacing, self-embracing, some combination of those two, and/or latently or openly abrasive toward targets other than the self.
__

The Catholic clergy are drama queens of constitution. That is, of course, a generalization, but alludes nevertheless to the documentation of deed of their chosen institution. Are they homosexual? More specifically, are the clergy who engage in what might be their most notoriously realized activity, the sexual abuse of children, homosexual? I have read that the two are not only unrelated, but also that priests who live out seemingly paedophiliac impulses with adolescent males are not necessarily homosexual at all. I understand that view, particularly the motivation behind purveying it, though more truthful [and true, in my opinion] is the more present presentation that homosexuality and the paedophilia are unrelated.

Albeit maybe prompted by the desire to not bear witness to baby burned at the stake with baptismal bathwater, I believe there is lazy thinking involved in the idea that homosexuality is either unrelated or secondary to the desire to de-frock alter boys. Still, I am not saying homosexuality is the primary issue, rather that it should be considered at most tertiary in the context of the constitution of the Catholic priestiality.

The background to my thinking is what I view as the fallacy that sexual desire for children is itself sick. What constitutes a child here is debateable and would certainly make a difference regarding the psychoanalysis of the person with the desire. In any case, central here is allowing such desire to come to fruition. An adult who engages in such behavior, in my opinion, knows full well that irrespective of de facto consent considerations that their delict goes beyond flouting societal taboos and reaches the threshold of abuse of control.

Noting that homosexuality alone was once enough a societal taboo to have manifest itself as a punishable crime against whichever society is a subject not only too long to begin this sentence but also that which hastens my amendment that it is the Catholic Church who are notiorious for their dogged insistance that same-sex copulation [implicit in open relationships] is a problem that must be reined in, reigned over from the pinnacle of their piety, even rained down upon the hired help at their high schools. This is the same institution that would seem to have made themselves worthy of the description "ritual(ized) abuse" in how they have otherwise treated those of their clergy who have been called out for what remains officially criminal behavior.

I believe that no insignificant number of homosexual Catholic boys who go on to their higher culling believe at first to be following their optimal allowable path, if not the only one, knowing that a wife & ten children are not in their gay (first meaning) timeline. Whether or not they are drawn by the festive nature of the prospective proceedings is but a lame joke, irony abounding in that Catholic carousal is a droning bore-fare, at least up until the point when a hell of a lot more than one sip of wine is imbibed.

Now, it is plausible based upon plenty of anecdotal evidence that deacons and priests would be drawn to adults of like-orientation and either leave the church or live a double life. But how many confused young boys grow into confused young men and fail to mature emotionally enough to do anything but take advantage of the only humans they have the courage to sexualize? Aside from sociopaths who know well what they're doing and where they're headed, the institution would seem to be a perfect home to foster hidden sexual abuse.

To the subject of same-sex marriage: I have long been of the mind that you shouldn't join a club that won't have you or those who you love as a member and that changing the club from within is silly, not least of which when you consider the absurdities of the club. But the big but is just how influencial that club was, is, and will always be until you [irony alert] tear it asunder from the inside, rendering it only a vague notion of what it once was.

But isn't the Catholic Church already a vague notion of what it once was and, taking everything into consideration, can one really consider that progress? One could stock the clergy with women and openly gay women and men, but it wouldn't make the "church" part of it any better to my taste. I believe it would go a long way to changing the brand of their pernicious paedophilia problem, but as is evidenced by the rest of our society, sick not with their desires but with their denial that the desires exist, it would not be to the betterment of the gay community, and probably to the detriment as regards public opinion. Having said all that, no institution with that level of influence should be allowed to discrimate as they do.

To my only remaining interest in the article at that link:
The Indianapolis high school announced in late June it was firing teacher Joshua Payne-Elliott because he is in a public same-sex marriage, in order to prevent a split from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.         
Did they actually state that as their objective behind the dismissal? Well, as they say, the proof is in...
The decision was announced in a letter on the school website [which] stated that the archdiocese is clear on the matter and that not firing the teacher “would result in forfeiting our Catholic identity due to our employment of an individual living in contradiction to Catholic teaching on marriage.” [...] The letter states that the school would no longer be able to have diocesan priests serve, offer sacrament and would lose its nonprofit status.
In other words, they'd have you believe that they fired their gay employee so as not to lose their right to stage their gay festivities. Of course, it's really about the money. Tax law notwithstanding, I smh whenever I try to get it around what goes into the decision to unload one's money upon one theater versus another. I mean, the mass of dough in consideration here [as compared to the paltry amount I've passed a hat around for] says something significant about the psychological hold the establishment has on its underlings [and how worthless I must be in that regard].