PZ reports on the Catholic Church’s ongoing war on Teh Gay. Specifically, this time it is Melbourne (Oz) considering testing priests for homosexuality. Those who “appear to be gay” will be given the boot.
Of course, this is misguided. You don’t need me to tell you that. “Appear[ing] to be gay” is not what defines gay men. Heterosexual men (at least, self-proclaimed breeders, happily married and raising kids, never once looking longingly at Brad Pitt instead of Angelina Jolie at the movies) may be effeminate. And gay men may be … well, anyone. I had a student once who surprised our class greatly–tough as nails, South Philly, a real man’s man. Literally, as it turned out. A great guy, he kept track of the heteronormative comments by his classmates just so he could check how each student took his announcement (2/3 of the way through the semester, when he spoke of being spit on and hit with rocks during a gay rights parade). He didn’t “appear to be gay”. And of course, my uncle, who was apparently happily married for 18 years, with three kids, before running off with a Catholic priest. (No, it is not just the Catholics; my uncle was a minister himself.) He didn’t “appear to be gay”.
You know who did appear to be gay? Hanging out with men (12 of them!), no reports of any sexual relations with women, or even relationships, despite being roughly 30 years old. He did hang around with one woman, but again, all reports are that they were just friends… if you don’t count a relatively recent formulaic blockbuster.
When cutting through the crap and lies
We find, with really no surprise,
That Jesus hung around with guys
And told us “love your brothers”
His choice of lifestyle still survives
As priests and monks still live their lives
With one another–never wives–
The brotherhood just smothers.
And when the homosexual beast
That lives within each Catholic priest
Is bottled up, and not released
It’s likely to explode!
So nip the problem in the bud,
With “eat my body, drink my blood”
And each potential priestly stud
Has sanctity bestowed.
The church thinks that the problem’s faced
By having priests assert they’re chaste,
But Freud would say they’ve just displaced
Their homosexual urges.
See, ever since the world began
Some men have loved their fellow man–
A truth the Church can never ban
Despite their futile purges.
There are, of course, some other ways;
They could embrace their fellow gays,
Not blame them for the sad malaise
Of scandal, sin, and shame
The church, not gays, in thought and deed
Has sinned–a fact they won’t concede.
Now more and more, their numbers bleed…
There’s none but them to blame.
Haha, yeah. I’d suspect Jesus was gay before I would have suspected any of my gay friends were. Even the guy with the rainbow chain necklace.
The gay and effeminate are two different axes. I’ve met really fey fellows who are skirt-chasers. And some of the first gay men who came out in my social circles were the super-masculine truck-driver types. Of course, they are the least likely to be taunted in person or physically attacked and I suspect that’s why they felt safe enough. Back in the day I was married to someone who, in addition to being a helluva nice guy, had a body by Michelangelo. I could detect some gay guys because they looked at him the way other guys looked at me.
I think that, if Jesus existed and if the gospels are any kind of historical record, the women were written out of it as usual. The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels states that one of the gospels which was deemed by the early church to be apocryphal described Mary Magdalen as Jesus’ favourite disciple.
I can’t seem to work up much anger or frustration over this. Fewer priests, more out-and-proud gay men — what’s not to like? Except, of course, all the people who still take this crap seriously, and will use it as further encouragement to spit and throw rocks… and worse.Brilliant poem as always, Cuttlefish.