Pointing the finger at yourself.
After the heaviness of yesterday, let’s lean towards something a little less serious but no less thought-provoking. For a little side tangent on the geek front first, the other day Lyndsey sent me an article about human/robot relationships that makes me wonder if it’ll be legal to marry a robot before it’ll be legal to marry a member of the same sex.
Second, the NY Times provides a short-but-sweet article that strains the bounds of credibility:
Vatican City: Priest in Gay Sting an ‘Exception’ - NY Times
A leading cardinal described as an “isolated case” a 60-year-old Vatican official caught on a hidden television camera declaring himself gay and making sexual advances to a younger man. The cardinal, Julián Herranz, head of the Vatican’s disciplinary committee, told the newspaper La Repubblica that such cases cause “sadness, assuredly, but we are aware that these cases are exceptions.” The Vatican official, Msgr. Tommaso Stenico of the Congregation of the Clergy, was suspended last week after being filmed for a program shown on Italian television. He denied that he was gay, called the filming “a trap” and said he was only pretending to be gay to gather information about “those who damage the image of the church with homosexual activity.”
I don’t think anyone’s buying yet another tired old “I’m not gay, really, I was just pretending, it was a trap!” excuse. We’ve heard it all, from “I was trying to see if someone else is gay!” to “I’m not gay, I’m just scared of black people!” My interest in this involves the spin people can put on it. What we have is an elderly man making inappropriate advances on someone who’s likely a parishioner, not only abusing his position but also - depending on the age of the “younger man” - attempting to make sexual contact with a minor. This is obviously a rather flawed individual. In your gut reaction - your very first knee-jerk response, not your later chosen response - how do you perceive his flaws?
(a.) Solely a part of him and his own responsibility;
(b.) Reflecting on his Church and its doctrines;
(c.) Reflecting on homosexuality and the nature of homosexuals.
I’m going to be honest and admit a flaw of my own here: my first thoughtless, biased, instinctive reaction was b, and I’m not proud of that. I’ve let the actions of certain branches of the Christian church towards the homosexual community taint my perception of their Church as a whole, and my immediate response was that his immoral behavior was a direct result of hypocrisy running rampant in the Christian church. Someone else equally tainted by the actions of a few less-than-stellar representatives of the gay community might say that his immoral behavior was a result of the immorality of homosexuality overall.
It’s hard to admit that you have those kind of prejudices when you’re supposed to be an advocate of tolerance. I’m human. I’m flawed. I’m subjective by nature, objective by choice, and I can’t always be the latter. I am not, however, using that as an excuse. I made myself stop and look at the situation again, and push my prejudices aside to recognize that the actions of one man, whether immoral or simply unfortunate, were the responsibility of no one but that single man - just as my own inherent prejudices are no one’s responsibility but my own.
It’s a little disturbing, the things that make you realize that you aren’t quite as open-minded as you’d like to think, even if you’re working on it. I think sometimes those of us who stand on this side of things often don’t quite realize that we’re turning the prejudices and hatred thrown at us around and flinging it right back, often unfairly and unjustly. We like to point the finger, but we don’t always point it in the right direction.
So which way was your finger pointing?
human-robot relationships, tommaso stenico, julian herranz, gay clergy, gay priest, vatican
October 17th, 2007 at 9:24 am
[...] Adrien-Luc Sanders wrote an interesting post today on Pointing the finger at yourself.Here’s a quick excerptA leading cardinal described as an “isolated case” a 60-year-old Vatican official caught on a hidden television camera declaring himself gay and making sexual advances to a younger man. The cardinal, Julián Herranz, … [...]
October 17th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I saw it as a mixture of a) and b). He has his own personal flaws, was quite cheerfully displaying them, and then hoped to rely on the organisation he’s part of to shield him, since this organisation has occasionally shielded others before. The blame lies mostly on him, but partially on the secrecy and protective attitude of the Church.
Oh, and have you seen this (unrelated) article?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54708
I couldn’t help but giggle, while feeling vaguely distressed that they’re getting so very worked up about it. The advice they rail against in the pamphlet is just a list of counsellors, advice centres, and advice not to do drugs, to wait till you’re an adult before trying anything, and to find someone you really trust when you first come out instead of risking a very bad reaction. I highly doubt the part about making kids sign a form promising not to tell their parents.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Was this ‘younger man’ a choirboy? And my knee jerk response was a ‘-shrug- typical’, so I guess that makes me b. However, I went to a Catholic School and although that doesn’t in any way excuse my opinion it does kinda explain(kinda). I think it’s sad that the guy couldn’t admit he was gay when he was young and avoid all this, but I can get why.
What strikes me as immoral is hiding TV cameras in a church. Now, I’m not religious, or even Christian, but my schooling at least gave me some basic respect for places of worship for any religion, and I can’t see how anyone thought this would be a good thing.
My finger points at Catholicism itself. Yes, I’m a little racist but growing up with friends (and doing the same myself, in part) who would absolutely hate themselves for the slightest homosexual thought, and quite often, just plain sexual stuff makes you hate something that causes people to be so repressed. That’s just my opinion, but I guess my area/school was quite heavily Catholic, so there are probably less repressed people out there (or that’s what I hope).
October 17th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
My first thought was “ha, what an idiot, hasn’t he learnt anything from all the vicars that keep turning up on the news?”. Is that a? Although it doesn’t really mean I’m not prejudiced in my reaction, just that I’m forst and foremost prejudiced against stupidity.
I agree with Sam about the cameras though, I don’t like hidden cameras at the best of times (because 1984 REALLY FREAKED ME OUT) but churches are supposed to be places of sanctury, surely. Is it just me or does that seem to preclude spying on people?
Also I find it hilarious that he says ‘he was only pretending to be gay to gather information about “those who damage the image of the church with homosexual activity.”’. Riiiight. Logical way of going about that.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Del: I can actually kind of understand why the parents are upset. It’s less about the homosexuality and more about exposing their kids to sexuality, period, without the parents’ consent and in one case, actively encouraging the children not to tell their parents. I think a lot of the parents wouldn’t be so upset and would even be all right with their children attending if they just sent home parental consent forms. It’s kind of like how sex ed was when I was in high school. When the time came for sex ed, they sent home parental consent forms and our parents signed and said “It’s okay for my child to learn about safe sex, reproduction, sexually transmitted diseases, the whole works.” Those who said no were sent to study hall. Some parents grumbled about sex ed existing at all, but they didn’t make a huge stink about it because they were given the option to make choices, as a parent, for their child.
This could have worked the same way, but instead showed a blatant lack of respect for a parent’s concerns over their child’s safety and education. Anything that says “parents not allowed” or “don’t tell your parents” will set off a huge red flag in any parent’s mind and predispose them against the situation. (Maybe I can say this because I helped raise my little brother for a while, and can slip into the parenting mentality.) Parents are wondering “What’s going on in there, that they don’t want me to see?” I don’t think the schools had any malicious intent, but I think they were a little overzealous in trying to reform children into being understanding and accepting of homosexuality. You can’t hijack parental control from the parents like that and expect them to be all right with it, especially with all of the scandalous things that happen in schools lately. ~shrugs~ A permission slip would have fixed all of this. Yes, some parents would have been homophobic and horrified and said “I don’t want my child a this event”, maybe even raised a stink about it, but it never would have reached these levels. Eventually they’d have settled down, grumbling all the way, the same way they do with sex ed.
Holy crap, that could have been an article on its own. I may use it tomorrow - if you don’t mind, Del.
Sam: I went to a Catholic school until middle school, so I can’t help but wonder if that lends to my predispositions the same way your schooling did to yours.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
A little of both a and b. A, because the cardinal was being abominably stupid. B, because the Catholic Church’s stance on gays to begin with and their history with pedophiles and child molesters (which they’ve learned what to do about legally, but not religiously, if you can understand what I mean). Basically, I’m saying that by ignoring sexuality, they’re setting themselves up for troubles with child molesters, and setting the Priests and Religious up for antics like this cardinal performed.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:50 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
October 18th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Help yourself, you’re the blogmonkey. My LJ only ever has accounts of admin messing up my university education and the clubs I’m advising people to go to.
I can see your point about the consent forms, now you mention it- it’s not something that immediately springs to my mind in these cases, since I can’t remember if I there were consent forms for any of the sex-ed seminars my school ran (but I have a poor memory and the cross-cultural difference excuse, being UK not USA based)
October 18th, 2007 at 7:20 am
[...] posted a link in a comment to yesterday’s post that was OT for the post, but perfect for a new post today. While I already discussed my take on it [...]