“Tuesday Morning,” 9/11
As I ponder the events of 9/11, one of the echoes in my mind is this song from Melissa Etheridge about Mark Bingham, an openly gay man who was one of those who tried to wrest control of Flight 93 from the terrorists. She points to an American who stepped up, “even though he could not marry, or teach our children in our schools,” and appeals to our nation’s best self: “Can you live with yourself, in the land of the Free, and make him less of a hero than the other three?” (Oh, the sample included in the song underscores the message–it’s from a railroad crew song picked up by civil rights (and well-known children’s) singer Ella Jenkins.)
Mychal Judge, OFM
Of course there’s also Fr. Mychal Judge, OFM, NYFD chaplain and an openly gay celibate priest, a longtime member of Dignity, who rushed to the scene on 9/11 ministering to the dead and injured until he was killed himself. “Objectively disordered”? Was he, as a gay man, “in a situation that gravely hinder[ed him] from relating correctly to men and women,” as the Vatican Instruction barring gay men from ordination insists? Or was he a challenge to all Christians to be a witness to the power and courage of Christian love, even in the face of horror? As Judge often asked, “Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?”
Two heroes of 9/11 who speak to us still. One invites us to examine ourselves in light of our shared vision for America as a land of freedom and equality, the other in light of our call as Christians striving to love well, courageously, wholly and truly. In light of both visions, as the crowd shouts in Etheridge’s video “Let’s roll.”
Is it really necessary to reduce people to their sexuality? What possible relevance — other than to snark once again about the Church and try to exploit the situtation to make some ideological point — is there to who is or is not gay with respect to the attacks on 9/11?
May God bless Bingham and Father Judge. They are children of God and our brothers. That is enough. Let’s not use them as political pawns.
Oh, Bender, we are in complete agreement, and you and I with Etheridge, and the others who remember Bingham and Judge specially on this day. Bingham is an American hero, even though some want to deny him equal rights in America because they reduce him to his sexuality. That’s the point of Etheridge’s song. Likewise there are those who and deny the worth of Judge’s vocation, because they see only his sexuality, not the whole man. So let’s work together to make it so some of us aren’t denied our equal dignity in society or Church because of our sexuality, eh? But as long as some of us are, we have work to do. Again I say, “Let’s roll.”
(But you responded so quickly I doubt you had time to savor Etheridge’s fine music. Ain’t it lovely?)
Did anyone say Bingham’s actions are less than heroic because of his homosexual orientation or practices? Etheridge seems to say so. Just curious. It sounds like apples and oranges to me.
Amen, Bender –this solemn day remembrance should not be used to push an personal ideology.
“Likewise there are those who and deny the worth of Judge’s vocation, because they see only his sexuality, not the whole man.”
This is pure conjecture — just listen to Apb. Dolan to understand that mere issue same-sex attraction is not an obstacle to the priesthood, it is men who identify ontologically first-and-foremost as homosexual or “gay” that rightly prevents them from consideration.
And this was not the case for Judge, who was a Catholic priest, first, and a man with same-sex attraction, second. We all have a cross to bear.
These comments create nothing but sadness. Little to no understanding; missing the point completey; seemly no effort made to put yourself in the shoes of those who are gay – rather, feeble efforts to shift the point; play the blame game; change the subject.
Sorry, the whole point of the song/music and the post is that we remember an event 10 years later in which two people (both happen to be gay) sacrifice their lives out of love for others. Yet, there have been folks who have tried to deny who they are.
Lisa highlights an ongoing tension if not hypocritical attitude that is at the heart of the current church’s position on homosexuality. (this is not pushing a personal ideology)
This 10th anniversary reminds us again of the inconsisentencies of the church’s stance through the stories of these two men. (Kathy – your comment makes no sense and yes, folks have made statements that try to “whitewash” the lives of both of these men)
Felt compelled to comment when I read – “and this was not the case for Judge, who was a Catholic priest, first, and a man with same-sex attraction, second. We all have a cross to bear”. How insulting, demeaning, and dismissive. Sorry, you can not compartmentalize people – gee, he was a priest and, by the way, a gay man but it was his cross.” That is exactly what Ethridge and Ms. Fullum are saying…that attitude and approach to one segment of the world’s population only underlines how the gospel message is warped, re-interpreteted to meet biases, and re-worked to fit a view that, at best, sees the world through a lense of fear, judgmentalism, and “I’m not only different but better”.
Think about it….how do you think Fr. Judge would react if he had heard this comment? Or Bingham?
We seem to be voting on this. I guess I’m with Bender. The idea that persecuted minorities deserve role-model publicity makes me uncomfortable. There’s nothing new about it, of course – I remember Nabakov’s taking a little dig at it in Lolita. It’s well meaning but decidedly smug and condescending. This instance smacks of pure propaganda. Enough.
I highly recommend viewing Saint of 9/11 a video of Fr. Mychal Judge. It is available on Netflix. It goes beyond 9/11 and discusses his gay orientation and his alcoholism addiction.
So, is it also insulting, demeaning and dismissive to see someone’s alcoholism as a cross to bear?
Bill, has anyone suggested they weren’t brave? Etheridge sings:
Can you live with yourself in the land of the free
And make him less of a hero than the other three
Did anyone say that he was less a hero than the other three? I don’t remember that. Just curious.
In some ways, it was today’s first reading (Sirach 27.30, 18:107) that struck me most forcefully, beginning:
“Wrath and anger are hateful things, yet the sinner hugs them tight.”
We (or at least some of us, self included) should give the passage a good deal of thought.
sorry, that second bit of Sirach should be 28:1-7. I shouldn’t try to type in the dark.
I think we all agree Mr. Bingham and Fr. Judge were heroes.
I don’t think that their heroic actions on 9/11 will give anyone the ammo they need to prove or disprove Church teaching about homosexual attraction, whether the children of homosexual couples ought to be allowed to go to Catholic school, or whether practicing homosexuals are fit to receive Communion.
I do think that their heroism ought to make us think twice about whether we extend to homosexuals the civil rights and dignity as people they deserve in the public arena from those of us who call ourselves Christians. Or whether we use our attitudes about what constitutes sinful behavior as a cover to marginalize and revile certain groups of people.
Lisa,
Thank you.
Your contributions to dotCommonweal are always–unfailingly–worth the price of admission.
Michael Perry
Mark – your comment reveals much more about you. Your ignorance is astounding – alcoholism is a disease; sexual orientation (by any reputable scientist) is genetic and part of a person’s very being.
As I said, you have now picked up on another subject; tried to change subjects, and go on attack. Bravo.
Kathy – your limp attempts to respond are just that. You know what you tried to say. Let’ see – your MO is too now bob and weave.
Thanks, Jean & M. Perry – you hit the nail on the head.
“…sexual orientation (by any reputable scientist) is genetic and part of a person’s very being.”
That’s fascinating. When was that researched published? It would be cool to get a citation to read. I always figured figured consensus would form around some form of fetal brain development given the reproductive fitness issue a genetic solution would pose to people who subscribe to natural selection and evolution. The last time I looked at the issue was the California Supreme Court “Marriage Cases” where the amici of the American Psychological Association, et al read (footnote 60), in relevant part:
” Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation – heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality — is determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. See generally Am. Psychol. Ass’n, 7 Encyclopedia of Psychol. 260 (A.E. Kazdin ed., 2000); 2 Corsini, supra note 4 at 683. “
A hard thread to enter into…but I’m grateful for your post, Prof. Fullam. (And not just because I’m a big Melissa Etheridge fan.)
Like Nicholas Clifford, I was powerfully struck by Sunday’s readings. It was one of those days when the Church calendar and the secular calendar align in unexpected and therefore doubly powerful ways.
Love and forgive. Love and forgive. Love and forgive. 70 x 7 times—which is to say, infinitely. Not an easy God to follow.
When I die, please don’t anybody make me the posthumous poster child for a political cause. Thank you.
Unlike other comments on this thread, I think Nicholas Clifford’s comment is something Father would very much agree with, and contains wise advice we can all profit from.
The song reminds a little of Johnny Cash’s Ballad of Ira Hayes (the Pima Indian at Iwo Jima). I think both songs are about real people who embraced their country even when it doesn’t always seem like the Country embraced them back.
MAT – APA is a “political” association made up of groups/state associations. Having worked on committees compiling the next DSM V, what you see is a messy process getting input/votes from all fifty states. Realize that this impacts PhD incomes in private or group practices because the DSM V is used by large insurance companies as a guage for coverage payment by diagnoses, category, etc.
So, in many ways this process reminds me of the state textbook commissions – you get folks who advocate for creationism, etc. It really does not nor should be used as “THE” scientific foundation.
If you want to look for documentation, go to the medical journals on genetics, biomedicine, etc.
Worse case example – Bachman’s husband has a clinic that provides Medicare counseling – he made about $.5 mil last year in federal monies providing various sorts of counseling including -by his own statement – a program that “prays away the gay”. Not exactly scientific.
Nice try.
Thank you for this comment. The sooner the Church deals with homosexuality as a normal variation in human sexual orientation the sooner the Church itself will heal. Within the Church, homosexuality is still the love that dares not speak its name. Insulting pseudo-distinctions–that the orientation is not in itself evil, but is an inclination towards evil–does nothing but warp young, devout Catholics who are invited to hate that which is so intrinsic to their personhood. The double life of gay clergy (celibate or not) makes for scandal even where no acts are performed. This must change.
As an oldster, I keep thinking of the time Jackie Robinson broke the color line in baseball.
And all of the first balck men and women to be this or that.
And all we went through in the civil rights movement.
And hpw closeminded people were about certain groups of peop.e.
How slow to learn.
In the post below, it is fashionable in some (I think conservative) Catholic circles to complain about political correctness, which, is easily a way of continuing the view of gays in our Church that reinforces bigotry toward many wonderful people, perhaps a lot better catholics than those who just want to psudopoliticize the problem.
And it is and wil continue to be a problem for the Church to come to grips with….
As Bender says, “Is it really necessary to reduce people to their sexuality?” No, I don’t think it is necessary or proper to reduce people to their sexuality, or gender or profession for that matter. We are all children of God, and that trumps everything else; seeing humans primarily as gay, male/female, of a certain race, as holding a certain job, merely turns them into utilitarian blobs. The Church has railed against this countless times yet this is exactly what it does when it claims women are unable to be ordained or gays are intrinsically disordered. It ought to listen to its own preaching.
A rot of irrationality entered papal/episcopal thinking with Humanae Vitae (which contains not a whit of actual natural law reasoning) and has distorted attitudes towards things sexual ever since. It needs to be repudiated.
“Nice try.”
Apparently not. I was hoping to learn something which you as a scientist know about the genetics of both human male and female homosexuality which is not ready available to the non -expert such as myself and I did not.
So, I assume had one of the passengrs on Flight 93 been a Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamist, we would be wrong about legally denying him the practice of his beliefs?
MAT 09/12/2011 – 12:28 am
You stated:
{“…sexual orientation (by any reputable scientist) is genetic and part of a person’s very being.”
That’s fascinating. When was that researched published? It would be cool to get a citation to read. I always figured figured consensus would form around some form of fetal brain development given the reproductive fitness issue a genetic solution would pose to people who subscribe to natural selection and evolution. The last time I looked at the issue was the California Supreme Court “Marriage Cases” where the amici of the American Psychological Association, et al read (footnote 60), in relevant part:
” Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation – heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality — is determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. See generally Am. Psychol. Ass’n, 7 Encyclopedia of Psychol. 260 (A.E. Kazdin ed., 2000); 2 Corsini, supra note 4 at 683. “}
——————————————————————–
MAT—we DO have the research evidence that animals of ALL species have some members who select as mates those of the same gender. And, of course, animals do not act according to volition.
The work of the acclaimed biologist and linguist, Bruce Bagemihl, demonstrated this so conclusively that his book “Biological Exuberance ” (1999) was submitted as evidence in the landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court of Lawrence vs. Texas (2003). The legal case concluded that homosexual activity is ‘natural.’ Bagemihl’s work has been corroborated and expanded through further studies by Joan Roughgarden in her 2006 book, “Evolution’s Rainbow.”
The “why” behind homosexuality is currently being investigated through more research by medical scientists looking at those pre-natal conditiions affecting human development such as hormones and genetics as well as the effect of early home environment upon young children.
But enough is known about homosexuality to determine that it is no more a ‘chosen’ state than in being born a redhead, with green eyes and with a left-hand dominance.
I wasn’t aware of Mark Bingham’s heroism – Lisa, thanks for calling it to our attention. It seem worth saying that I’m grateful for his sacrifice. There were a lot of martyrs that day.
Just looking around us and informally surveying the attitudes of various Christian denominations toward homosexuality, it’s obvious that there is a very broad spectrum of views – it seems there isn’t a single Christian “take” on homosexuality. Thus it becomes important for the Catholic Church to make sure that it is stating clearly what it teaches about homosexuality – including distinguishing its teaching from those emanating from other Christian sources.
The civil-rights paradigm for homosexual/gay rights doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, make much sense from a Catholic perspective, because the Catholic church should be supporting full realization of civil rights for all – including, of course, homosexuals. In my opinion, the Catholic church can do much, much more than she does to support the realization of full human rights for homosexuals – to speak out when homosexuals are unjustly discriminated against, to find ways to show solidarity, to take action to change unjust laws and unjust practices. Thus, there is that line in the Etheridge song, “he could not … teach your children in our schools” – if that is true (is it?) then Catholics should be outraged and work to change it.
While I agree with the comments expressed by some of my conservative friends here that it is enough that Bingham was an American who sacrificed his life for America, I wouldn’t want us to live in a society in which differences in sexuality are studiously ignored or considered to be unimportant. To my way of thinking, that doesn’t seem to be the path to true peace. Obviously, our sexuality is an extremely important aspect of our personhood. I would suggest, let’s acknowledge sexuality – and work to make sure that a person’s sexuality isn’t an impediment to enjoying the full human and civil rights to which all humans are entitled.
Jim, as always, you restore my faith in loving, thoughtful, faithful Catholics.
Lisa Fullam, thank you for reproducing the last known pictures of Mark Bingham, who grew up here in the Bay area and played rugby at UCB, and Franciscan Mychal Judge. Both of these men played sacrificial roles for all of us during the attacks of September 11th.
Mark Bingham was one of the first American champions who fought back against the attack upon our freedoms by leading the rush on the cockpit of the hijacked American Airlines Flight 93 over the skies of Pennsylvania.
The picture of the lifeless body of Mychal Judge being carried from the WTC rubble by the very people he ministered to in life, and who were devoted to and loved him, has always reminded me of classic paintings of the removal of Jesus’ body from the crucifix.
The images of these brave and courageous of men sears into our consciousness the very idea that gay men can represent the “better angels” of our nature.
Dionne Farris’ song, “Human” has always struck me as good theology…even though it makes no reference to God. Here’s the best video I could find on YouTube, a performance of the song by dancers from the DeKalb Elementary School for the Arts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E22bE0rlTnU
Lyrics to the song are simple, direct and powerful:
“Before I am black
Before I am woman
Before I am short
Before I am young
Before I am African
I am Human.
Because I am black
Because I am woman
Because I am short
Because I am young
Because I am African
I am Human.”
The same could be said for Mr. Bingham’s and Fr. Judge’s sexual orientation—or for any of us.
I don’t see anything inconsistent in saying that these men are heroes, that marriage is between one man and one woman, that same-sex attraction tends towards a behavior that is intrinsically morally wrong, and that people with same-sex-inclinations should be able to teach in schools but not able to teach that homosexual activity is acceptable. Ms. Fullam seems to assume the opposite, but maybe she has tried to actually show that elsewhere.
I no longer give a damn what the RCC church teaches about my daughter, and nor does she. The RCC rejected her as we have rejected it.
You can raise your children to believe that their classmate is “intrinsically disordered” if you must. My only concern is that she be treated equally by the state.
I am sure that is Ms Etheridge’s point.
By the way, every one should google the phrase “intrinsically disordered”. There is the phrase as used by the RCC, and the phrase as used in the medical profession which refers to a cancer………a coincidence, I think not.
Little Bear:
Thank you for that gracious reply.
“But enough is known about homosexuality to determine that it is no more a ‘chosen’ state than in being born a redhead, with green eyes and with a left-hand dominance.”
That was my understanding as well based on what I have read. What I found interesting in the remarks above was the specific reference to a “genetic” cause. I have read several papers regarding theories of fetal brain development but with the exception of (if memory serves me) an Italian paper regarding human males and a South Korean paper involving mice, I didn’t realize people have generally overcome what I would call (based on my limited coursework in university) the “reproductive fitness” paradox.
“The images of these brave and courageous of men sears into our consciousness the very idea that gay men can represent the “better angels” of our nature.”
The truly sad thing is that anyone could not already know this, especially if they are at all familiar with the Church’s teaching. It would appear Father Judge was quite familiar with it, thank God.
Michael Cowtan presents a POV I have heard from many Catholic parents of gay children, and I thank him for putting it so bluntly.
While I do not think it is necessary to reject the Church in order to love one’s gay child, I understand why parents of gay children often do.
The “intrinsically disordered” phrase reserved to describe homosexuality seems to encourage some people to see homosexuality as a special class of sin and, to rant about the homosexual agenda, the homosexual lifestyle, etc. etc., as if homosexuals were somehow not human.
These rants ought to be reigned in and smacked down. This is Holy Mother Church, not Wesboro Baptist.
@ Jean Raber:
While I agree that the Catholic Church is not in the same homophobic category as the “God-hates-fags” Westboro Baptist Church, it is still hard to stomach the “intrinsically disordered” hypocrisy of a Catholic Church that continues to stigmatize gays and lesbians while many, if not most, of its priests and bishops are gay.
If Catholics are going to have a majority of gay men in their clergy, why can’t the church celebrate the lives of gays and lesbians in its communal life and liturgical practice?
I think we all know which side of the argument that Jesus would come down on.
Paul in Romans (8:38-39) states it most definitively:
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I wanted to mention that this Friday kicks off a series of conferences on sexual diversity(and religion) beginning with “Learning to Listen” at fFordham.
Sorry, Matthew, but America’s In All Things” has a link to the conference(s).
A post there from the right asks with some acerbity about what have we got to learn.
I’d venture to say plenty if our minds are open.