Pride parade

[ironphoenix]

I'll be walking in tomorrow's Pride parade. There is a contingent of us from my parish; I don't know exactly how many of us there will be, but it's sanctioned by the parish itself (we even have T-shirts!). I have no idea whether there will be any reaction from the wider church institution. I think it's an important step for us in the Church who look at Jesus' life and teachings, and imagine what his radical inclusivity might be today.

To those who have been turned away by the church: I'm sorry, and we're trying to change things for the better.

Comments

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Could you please clarify one thing, though: are you saying that contradicting the stated position of the institution of which I am and remain a member makes me personally seem less trustworthy than not doing so would?

I am saying that: You are contradicting the church that you currently actively support, and that makes you seem less believable than if you were taking a position that your church ignored, or where you agreed with your church. Because your church is both authoritarian and disagrees with you; your disagreement with them inherently appears disingenous to outsiders. If you were a member of a less-authoritarian or less-homophobic church, your support of Pride would appear to be a more sincere and honest expression of your church.

Put another way: I don't trust that your contravention of your church's commandments is meaningful in any real-world larger-than-you sense. I believe it to be sincere, and well-intentioned, and also that your church will actively work to undo any good you do.

Which makes me mistrustful of anything you do in the name of your church. I believe that Mike wants good things. I have great trouble believing that the Catholic Church wants good things even though Mike says they do, because the official church organs keep saying otherwise.

Does that make sense?


I am desperately trying to explain why I feel you are sincere and your church is not, without offending. And I have ZERO idea if I'm threading that particular needle.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Put another way: I think you agree with all the things you say. I think your position as religious representative is compromised by "superiors" contradicting you. Does that make sense?

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

I think you've explained yourself well, and I haven't taken offense. It's an intensely affecting issue for me, and I get the sense that it's one for you as well; hopefully, I'm not giving offense either.

Because your church is both authoritarian and disagrees with you ...

That is part of what makes this parade difficult for me: this may be akin to civil disobedience, from the point of view of the organization. Archbishop Terrence may take a dim view of this, and I'm not entirely sure of what that would entail.

That said, "my church" is a complicated, fragmented entity, much like "my country". I don't want to represent this as a universal opening-up on the part of the Roman Catholic Church as a whole; that would indeed be dishonest. I think the authorities and their supporters in this are sincerely opposed to our position, and don't want to present them as pretending to support it.

All I can say is that there are some of us who are working from within, and making that public is a step in a very long struggle.

Where I think I disagree with you is the notion that my church is an indivisible atomic entity. I sincerely hope that this leads to reflection and reform, not to schism--we've had too much of the latter already--but I acknowledge the possibility; last week's Gospel reading, after all, was the bit where Jesus says that his coming will bring about not unity, but division.