La Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe

La Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe

We were privileged to see the local celebration of Our Lady of Guadalupe last evening in Peña Blanca, a small village about six miles or so from us. It is a very old village and many of the residents are of New Mexican-Spanish/Mexican descent.

Today, December 12th is the actual Feast Day (Fiesta) and last evening was "Vespers" or the vigil of the feast day. The Catholic Church in Peña Blanca does the feast because the church is dedicated to La Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe.

The church, which is actually rather new (I suspect it replaced a much older one) was decked out with luminarias (paper bags with lit candles inside) and the street was lit with ferolitos (stacks of firewood) that get torched so that they burn for the entire duration of the solemn procession of the congregation which takes place while the church bells ring and fireworks fill the sky above.

The church bells are manually rung by men pulling the cords - obviously a strenuous task.

Here are a few photos and videos of "local color" which is probably not to be found in too many places in the United States outside of New Mexico.

The Procession began after the evening Mass.

Fireworks and Church Bells

Luminarias

Lighting the Ferolitos

The Little "Bonfires" Along the Street

The Church Decked Out with Luminarias

Main Altar in the Church

Another Likeness of Our Lady of Guadalupe

The Fireworks were as good as the 4th of July

Do You Remember "Doctor" Laura?

 Something reminded me of her today. Back in the 80s she was a very popular radio talk show "psychologist" giving out advice. She was very entertaining. Then she got nasty anti-gay and racist. I and all my friends stopped listening. One of her listeners sent her a letter. This is from Snopes:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Sunday Bible Study

 

…I do find value in some of the teachings of Jesus. I read this parable again, and it is not only fitting for this situation, it is very powerful.

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going from Guatemala, fleeing a drug cartel that wanted to kill him and seize his daughters as sex slaves, when he found himself on the brink of starvation, having crossed a desert, a river, and another desert with limited supplies and no money. He went to a prosperity gospel preacher for help, but they had just had the carpets cleaned so the preacher refused him shelter. He went to the Christian governor for help, but the governor shipped him to Martha's Vineyard with no support or direction so he could own the libs. But a pinko, commie libtard saw him and took pity on him. He clothed him, and fed him, and sheltered him. He brought him to an immigration lawyer and said 'Look after him. When I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell victim to drug cartels and gangs?"

The expert in the law replied, "The bleeding heart, pinko commie libtard who had mercy on him."

And Jesus said, "Go and do likewise."

I Become Less Optimistic Every Day

 Let me refer you all to this link:

Holy Bullies - Christofascism

 Tell me what you think.

 Here's what I think even without thinking to long and hard:

This is frightening. And what makes it that much more frightening is that the forces driving it are irrational, insidious and infiltrating and have already infiltrated our government at every level. 

The statements are contrived and the recitation made to appear "prayer-like" or based in religion. They are neither. The statements are political, reactionary and I would say subversive or even treasonous. 

This country (and we are not alone) is in danger of being taken over (not taken back) by fanatical "religious" cultists. It is already happening.

These people are like the individuals who've been appropriated by the Borg on Star Trek or like the goat-head weeds that germinate after a desert rain and grow like wild in days - They look quite non-threatening but their thorny seeds can puncture a bicycle tire or cause serious injury.

In some way it also reminds me of having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance back in grade school. I always felt uncomfortable, like we were all being brainwashed or controlled and mindlessly following some cult. 

 I also remember back in the 70s when the charismatic movement began to "infiltrate" the Catholic church and I guess it was called "pentecostal" in protestant churches. I thought that was scary. But I'm pretty sure this is the result. 

At this point in my life I have a great mistrust of ALL religions and have a "show me" by your behavior and actions what procedes from your beliefs.

How do we push back against such an irrational cult?

Reflecting on World AIDS Day...at little late, but, that's me.

 World AIDS Day was December 1, and I've had an opportunity to read posts here and there about those whose lives were lost and the Reagan era's completely ignoring the crisis in the 80s and, well, got to thinking about some other aspects of those years. I was recently directed to a contemporary podcast that was all kinds of positive thinking and healing and praying and I remembered Louise Hay and how so many gay men gravitated to her and her lovely, but toxic, message. Google offered this article that I will share here.

And just to be clear I am more of the mindset that "If You Meet the Buddha, On The Road, Kill Him" (reference to the Book by Sheldon Kopp)

 Except where otherwise noted, all content is licensed by the credited writer under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA License.

Take a Hay Ride: Remembering Louise Hay

By Sarah Swedberg • January 16, 2018

On August 30, 2017, Louise Hay died. Hay was a metaphysical healer who began her journey in healing at the First Church of Religious Science in the late 1960s. Her first publication was a 1976 pamphlet that came to be called, “Heal Your Body.” She became a best-selling author and publisher in the 1980s in the midst of the AIDS crisis.

I became familiar with Hay’s work in 1988 when I took a second, part-time job to survive the trickle-down economy of that era. I loved my second job. I was a clerk in a gay-owned bookstore in the Castro District of San Francisco called The Love That Dares. I’m not sure I knew of Louise Hay before that moment, but it became apparent that the store sold Hay’s material more than anything else. The customers buying her books and cassette tapes were gay men hoping to survive the AIDS epidemic, looking for answers or seeking hope.

Even then, Hay had her detractors. Her solutions were not scientific and blamed disease not on viruses or cells gone amok, but on behavior and negativity. In You Can Heal Your Life she wrote, “I believe we create every so-called illness in our body.”¹ This is, of course, problematic, and carries with it the insinuation that you are sick because you are not trying hard enough to make yourself well.²

In 1988, Los Angeles Times journalist Beth Ann Krier interviewed Dr. Michael Gottlieb for a piece about Hay. Gottlieb was one of the physicians who had originally identified AIDS in 1981. He stated, “As a physician, I think that love and acceptance and forgiveness may well be an important component of healing, but AIDS is a viral disease caused by a virus and not by lack of love.” For Hay, lack of self-love was at the center of illness and the center of healing. According to “The List” of dis-eases (as she called them) first published in Heal Your Body in 1982, and then updated for inclusion in her other works, the probable causes of AIDS included “[f]eeling defenseless and hopeless,” and “[s]exual guilt.”³

I have a great deal of skepticism about anything that smacks of cult-like thinking and a great deal of anger about “cures” that blame the victims. Of course, blaming victims wasn’t new in the 1980s; it has a long history. In 1747, John Wesley first published a self-help medical guide that began by blaming disease on sin. At first, man “knew no sin, so he knew no pain, no sickness, weakness, or bodily disorder.” But following the original sin, “The seeds of weakness and pain, of sickness and death, are now lodged in our inmost substance.”⁴ For Wesley, it was not unconditional love that was the cure, however, but a course of medicine, rest, and “that Old unfashionable Medicine, Prayer.”⁵

In a self-help book first published in 1803 and entitled, Advice to Mothers, on The Subject of Their Own Health; and of the Means of Promoting the Health, Strength, and Beauty of their Offspring, William Buchan placed the blame of miscarriage squarely on women’s behavior. He advised pregnant women to “be doubly attentive to preserve the utmost sweetness and serenity of temper … and to keep every other unruly passion or desire under the steady control of mildness and reason.” Pregnant women should not be ruled by fear, he cautioned. While they might be alarmed by stories about the dangers of pregnancy, cases of “miscarriage or of death” were rare and “owing to the improper conduct of women themselves.”⁶

14th annual Lesbian and Gay Pride parade in New York, June 27, 1983. (Mario Suriani/Associated Press)

While statements like these make my blood boil, as a resident of the Castro in the late 1980s, I also realize that people like Hay gave dying men a rope to cling to. It is important to remember that in that era, there was little else. The pharmaceutical giant, Burroughs-Wellcome, patented AZT in 1985 and it was approved as a treatment for AIDS by the Food and Drug Administration in 1987. However, for many men, AZT proved toxic, particularly in the doses in which it was administered, and, by itself, AZT is not enough to prevent HIV or death from AIDS. Additionally, government on all levels was largely ignoring the AIDS epidemic because of the stigma of a disease predominantly presenting itself among gay men and intravenous drug users.

In 1983, Pat Buchanan, then communications director for Ronald Reagan, had called AIDS “nature’s revenge on gay men.” Only six years into the AIDS crisis, in June 1987, had President Ronald Reagan’s administration finally established a presidential commission on HIV/AIDS, while still largely shying away from public discussions of the disease. In 1988, on the floor of the Senate, Jesse Helms defended an appropriations bill amendment that kept funding from AIDS education by stating, “You have got to call a spade a spade, and a perverted human being a perverted human being.”

Add to this neglect and hatred by government, the neglect and hatred of society. Discrimination against gay men was the societal norm and many families disowned their sons when they came out as gay or bisexual and HIV+. Those who survived that era recount that neglect. In a 2003 interview with Mark Harrington, one of the leading members of the New York AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power’s Treatment and Data subcommittee, Sarah Schulman asked, “[W]ere people surprised that people could suffer and die and their families never show up?” Harrington replied, “I was. But, I also — remember, the context of ACT UP was also this incredible homophobia of the Reagan years, and this incredible, sort of, hatred and disgust of gay people. So, given that all those things were going on in the broader society, those parents were part of that hatred of gay people.”

In the midst of this neglect and hatred, many of the men I knew who were infected with HIV looked in many directions for a solution. My friend Phil, one of the members of the affinity group to which I belonged, and with whom I protested in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on October 13, 1987, was a member of a macrobiotic society. Phil swore that the combination of coming out to his family and a macrobiotic diet was making him better. In one of our affinity group’s first meetings, he told us that the thrush from which he had suffered had disappeared, and that he felt healthier than he had in years.

While Hay blamed the ill for their illnesses, she also preached love. “Louise Hay, an advocate for unconditional love and forgiveness during the height of the AIDS crisis, died peacefully Wednesday morning of natural causes,” is the first line of Hay’s obituary in the LGBT Los Angeles Blade. In a blog called, “My Fabulous Disease,” Mark S. King wrote that Hay’s “message of self-love and unconditional acceptance—of our lives and other people—resonated like a beacon to the frightened gay men of Los Angeles.”

It was in Los Angeles in 1987 that the Hay Rides started, gatherings of people with AIDS, mostly gay men, looking for an answer or, at the very least, loving human contact. Some came away from the Hay Rides in despair, but others came away with self-love that was hard to find as a gay man in the 1980s. As Hay wrote, “Often what we think of as the things ‘wrong’ with us are only our experiences of our own individuality.”⁷ This message, alone, was a powerful one.

The End, but Not the End I Meant to Write

Over the last two months, I have thought a lot about Louise Hay and her legacy. When I conceived of this piece, I thought my conclusion would be a mixed one: that blaming the ill was harmful, but that, perhaps, for some of the sick and dying the good of being loved and touched in an era marked by hatred and loathing outweighed that harm. I was almost finished writing and thought I would ruminate over the conclusion while I walked the dogs, coming back mid-morning to write that there was bad and good.

Before heading out the door with my furry companions, I checked Facebook. In response to a righteous rant from a young friend of mine, there was this reply, “I believe the words ‘sexual assault’ and ‘sexual harassment’ are thrown out way too loosely. Victim mentality is the problem and that’s the real issue. You can only be a victim if you allow yourself to be one. Regardless of who you are. Man, woman, gay, straight, etc.”

Reading those words, so stark on my screen, I thought: No. Louise Hay did more harm than good. Building an industry on the message that “DIS-EASE CAN BE HEALED, IF WE ARE WILLING TO CHANGE THE WAY WE THINK AND BELIEVE AND ACT!” perpetuates the cultural belief that harm is chosen, consciously or unconsciously.⁸ People have AIDS because of denial of self. Brain tumors are caused by refusing to change old patterns. Women are raped because they act like victims. For decades we have tried to rid ourselves of those ideas with little, or no, success.

Less than a month after Hay’s death David Groff published a piece for Slate entitled, “How Louise Hay’s Spiritual Pseudoscience Harmed a Generation of Gay Men.” Although Groff acknowledged that Hay “offered open if judgmental arms,” he concluded that, “The last thing people with AIDS needed to hear was that they had caused their own illness.”

My friends who lived and died before the era of effective treatment reached for visualization, meditation, diet, vitamins, and snake oil. In some cases, they survived the early years of the plague, and in others, they did not. There were no magical outcomes. Those who caught the virus are not to be blamed for their illness. Those who did not survive are not to be blamed for their deaths. There is still stigma, but activists and medical health professionals have worked to rid our society of that. Perhaps some of the dying needed Hay’s love in the 1980s. If only she could have offered it without blame.

Notes

1. Louise L. Hay, You Can Heal Your Life Gift Edition (Hay House, 1999), 151. Return to text.
2. Several Nursing Clio writers have commented on this in previous posts. For instance, check out Agnes Arnold-Forster’s “Metaphors and Malignancy in Senator McCain’s Cancer Diagnosis.” Return to text.
3. Hay, You Can Heal Your Life, 177. Return to text.
4. John Wesley, Primitive Physic Reprint Edition. (London: Epworth Press, 1960), 23. Return to text.
5. Ibid., 29. Return to text.
6. William Buchan, Advice to Mothers, on the Subject of their Own Health; and on the Means of Promoting the Health, Strength, and Beauty, of their Offspring (London: T. Caddell and W. Davies, 1811), 31-32. Return to text.
7. Hay, You Can Heal Your Life, 101. Emphasis in the original. Return to text.
8. Ibid., 239. The shouting caps are in the original. Return to text.

Headline image: Poster by ACT-UP for an AIDS demonstration on October 6, 1989. (B. Rader/Wikipedia)

Tags: AIDS, cult, health, HIV/AIDS, louise hay, mental-health, Victim Blaming

About the Author

Sarah Swedberg

Sarah Swedberg is a Professor of History at Colorado Mesa University and a lifelong activist.

Worse Everyday: Pence's "christian rabbi’ Ignores Shooting Victims to Pray for Republicans

With all due respect for the victims of anti-Semitic violence in Pittsburg, their families, their loved ones and the entire community, I post this entry:

I watch the news every day and I am generally expecting, (and my expectations are always met),  more outrageous news from the current administration.

All the blogs I read are commenting on the news, expounding on the outrageousness and stupidity and dangers and illegalities, and atrocities of the administration and its supporters.

So I have pretty much given up blogging about it myself, as others do a good job and, well, who reads this blog anyhow?

But every once in a while there is a story that really gets under my skin. This is one of them:

Link: Article on Pence's "Christian Rabbi"   (Be sure to read the Twitter comments in the article)

and here: LGBT Nation

Who knew there were "christian rabbis" trying to convert Jews?

And that one would be invited pray for republican candidates days after the shooting at the Synagogue in Pittsburg, rather than pray for the dead?

The height of insensitivity gets higher every day with this arrogant, ignorant, self-serving administration. Hubris beyond the definition of hubris.

I fear Pence (who is calculating and fanatic, if not outright evil) is inherantly more dangerous than our president (who is merely a stupid, arrogant, narcissistic puppet).

So-called "Religious Liberty Task Force" Gets Raked Over Coals by Twitterers

I can't figure out how to post the actual Tweets, but here is a link to Huffington Post shows some Twitter responses to Sessions "Religious Liberty Task Force"

What We Need To Know

I am sharing this LINK to a downloadable PDF "The Extremism of anti-LGBT powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom" even though I have not yet had a chance to read through it.

Thanks to Alvin McEwen at http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com

US Secretary of State Pompeo and Hate Group FRC Dance Together

“Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom”

This "religious freedom" summit (July 24-26) hosted by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is beyond hypocrisy in light of the president's Muslim travel ban and despite its lip-service to religious refugees, is an insidious attempt by the religious right to establish christian theocracy here and abroad. Top officials from 80 nations are scheduled to attend, and Vice President Mike Pence will be giving an address. 

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Southern Poverty Law Center designated HATE GROUP, with a long history of anti-LGBT activities, has been promoting this event which dovetails with his anti-LGBT agenda here and abroad.

I don't understand how this summit cannot be blatantly unconstitutional as it is promoting, not just Christianity, but a very narrow definition of christian beliefs which are in direct opposition to the civil rights and liberties of other religions as well as to the rights of LGBT persons.

This is totally unacceptable.

There is no formal action that I know of to oppose this abuse of the office of US Secretary of State.

What the Fuck Happened to the Age of Aquarius?

Remember the 1960s and 70s? Watergate, Vietnam, MASH, Free Love (for straights), Woodstock, civil rights, Kent State, LSD, pot, HAIR the Musical?

And they (our elders) thought we were all going to hell. But hey, it was the Age of Aquarius, right? But it was all Doris Day, Mr. Rodgers and milk-toast compared to 2018.

I have been very exasperated lately, addicted to the immediate news available on the internet...waiting, expecting, anticipating, salivating for the one, final, irrefutable treasonable act or past felony by our so-called president, that will finally end our collective nightmare.

Nothing.

If one tenth of his transgressions had been attributed to his predecessor, Obama would have been impeached and tried for treason. That this sad, embarrassing, wreck of a man, DT (I have refused to utter his name since the election) is allowed to remain in office is beyond incredible. But George Will has said it better than I ever could (see clip below).

But, yes, I've been exasperated, exhausted, frustrated, depressed. So beyond anger that I feel numb. So I've not had the energy or passion to write much on this blog, particularly about politics or the state of the world.

Also, please read an excellent post by my blog-brother Russ Manley: (George Will: This Sad, Embarrassing Wreck of a Man")

I am reposting the MSNBC segment with George Will (a former conservative republican) here:




And my comment here:

I agree with Michael in that scarier than DT alone, is the fact that he, DT, still has die-hard supporters who, in the face of all facts and logic still are adamant in their baseless, twisted, misinformed and erroneous beliefs. And that some of them will, I believe, violently fight anyone who threatens their world-view. 

Given Bannon's evil ambition to transform the world into a extreme far-right ideological monolith, and the fact that there are groups willing and able to carry his banner (no pun intended), I fear that the story has only just begun. That this "movement" is an almost world-wide phenomena (however small) is, in keeping with your latin references, a "mysterium tremendum et fascinans." i.e. somewhat of a mystery, both horrifying and fascinating.

In either case they, (trumpanzees or bannonites), are, perhaps (hopefully), in the throes of philosophical death, so they are mustering every conceivable means of hanging on to their identity and belief systems. And perhaps the only antidote is to continually badger them with light and truth.

We aging hippies believed in (or at least sang about) the Age of Aquarius...with "harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding." What the fuck ever happened to that?

And then there's this: 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, describing next week’s “Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom” [among more than 60 countries abroad] in an appearance on Tony Perkins’ (an SPLC designated hate group's) radio show: 

• “We expect for this to be far more than just talk. We’ll be laying out a path where we’re hopeful that the State Department here in the United States can lead a process where religious freedom is raised as a priority for the citizens of every country.” 

My reaction:
My stomach just flipped. This MUST be unconstitutional at some level. But they won't talk about civil rights violations or LGBT rights or the imprisonment and murders of LGBT persons in several of those of those countries. Beyond hypocrisy, this proposal is an insidious attempt at establishing pseudo-christian theocratic states here and abroad: it is the pseudo-christian version of fundamentalist islamic sharia law.

Refusing To Provide Medical Care Based On Religion Is Unacceptable

This is a very strong statement by a gay pediatrician against the new Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom in the US Department of Health and Human Services.

The government under the current administration, rather than protecting the rights of all to non-judgemental health care, is cow-towing to the fringe element of the religious right who blindly support him despite his very questionable ethics.

Read the article here.

Pope Francis and the Snake in the Oval Office

Pope Francis gave a relatively uninspiring TED talk recently. But despite the lack of anything revolutionary, he did talk about the good Samaritan, about leaving needy people behind, along the wayside. About entire peoples who are discarded as worthless.

He also talked about people who are concerned only with money and things and so often regard people as worthless.

Here is the video with English subtitles:

Someone else gave a talk recently and compared the people Pope Francis talked about to venomous snakes...and by extrapolation, to every immigrant present and past who has come to the United States seeking opportunity and a chance to contribute to this nation...this could likely be you, your parents, your grandparents, your progenitors in one way or another.

I will only give the link as I don't wish to contaminate my blog with his image: Link to Snake

Just when you maybe thought he couldn't get any more outrageous he repeats these lyrics with such vitriolic disdain that it is sickening. I guess he hasn't yet reached the infernal depths of the cesspool of revulsion of which he is capable. (Please excuse the mishmash of words...I cannot find sufficient words or words precise or succinct enough to express my disgust).

NOTE: In New Mexico, even some snakes are protected and given more respect than our "president" deserves.

A Still Relevant Afterword

Having mentioned my Memoir on Facebook a day or so ago, I am reminded that some thoughts I wrote in the AFTERWORD of the book are more than relevant today in view of recent developments in the conservative fringe movement that has hijacked the Republican Party. I am sharing that final chapter of my memoir here (forgive me -- I may have shared this some time back) in hope that 1) you will find it worthy of your time to read it; 2) that some of you might want to read the entire book which is not at all like the AFTERWORD - it is much more entertaining and I think even the serious chapters will hold your interest. Available on Amazon in print and Kindle. https://www.amazon.com/Did-Ever-Horse-Coming-…/…/1619335573…

So here goes:

Peter M, the friend to whom I addressed the Preface, died from complications of AIDS, like too many other people I have known. I never finished composing that letter to him in 1987 and so it was never sent. Here, many years later, I include an Afterword, addressed to him.
* * * * *
May 2014
Dear Peter,

I’ve somehow survived to 2014. I am old—or pretty nearly old as life journeys go. In the grand scheme of things, I am nobody and my life is irrelevant. So why should my story, my experiences beginning more than half a century ago, matter to anyone? Why should I bother to write down these snippets of my life?

The answer to that last question: I had to write this account, even if no one ever reads it, because I was compelled to do so in the same way as I was compelled to come out; it was a matter of survival. And if I am to live any semblance of an authentic life, I must come out unreservedly and often; because coming out is never only an event: it is a continuous process and one that challenges me daily.

• The woman who cuts my hair when I’m visiting in South Carolina insists on making small talk and asks about my wife. She has scissors. How do I respond?
• At the auto repair shop, I tell the service tech, who I’ve just overheard making a homophobic comment, “If there’s a problem, call Lee, my, uh, friend? roommate? partner? significant other? husband?”
• Leon and I are holding hands on a deserted beach at sunset as some college kids approach in the distance. Do I let go of his hand?

Ann Bancroft as Ma Beckoff scolded Harvey Fierstein’s Arnold in Torch Song Trilogy: “You haven’t spoken one sentence since I got here,” she says indignantly, “without the word gay in it.” How often do I check myself so as not to offend the likes of all the Ma Beckoffs in the world with constant gay references?

I am challenged daily to come out, again and again and again, because, even as things appear to be changing, there still exist subtle and pervasive societal and cultural norms that are intended to usher us back into our closets: the veiled but insidious beliefs, behaviors, words, and hatred that are still widely tolerated.

I am challenged to come out, again and again and again, because of the hate and vitriol and rage that seem to escalate in response to every equal rights victory and with every courageous individual who comes out and who refuses to remain silent and invisible.

I am challenged to come out, again and again and again, because too many gay kids still choose suicide as their only option to escape bullying and familial rejection; because some lawmakers still introduce bills that would take back our hard won rights and liberties; because some religions still wave signs declaring that “God hates fags” while others, less blatant, use more refined and educated language to condemn and vilify us.

My coming out was not only a matter of self-preservation; it was and continues to be a uniquely liberating, transformational, spiritual, and healing life experience. I do believe that coming out is the only antidote to the poison of societal oppression that tries to deceive us into believing that the closet is the safest place to be, that the closet will ultimately protect us from the world, from ourselves, and from eternal damnation.

The closet’s false security is ultimately suffocating and fatal to one’s emotional and psychological integrity, if not to one’s physical existence. The closet is built on fear and guilt, but more so on societal and religious disapprobation and condemnation — a formula for what is called internalized homophobia. The closet derives power from this internalized homophobia, from our internal conflicts and fears, the artificial conflict between some bogus good and fake evil: the fear of rejection, reprisals, and violence, and the terror of a mythologized Last Judgment and ungodly wrath.

Despite all of that, we persist in our coming out as if our lives depended on it — because they do.

Coming out is so vital to our integrity that the impulse to acknowledge and be true to ourselves is, in many respects, not unlike our innate survival instinct.

The fact that the event that we call coming out is virtually universal to the contemporary homosexual experience suggests that it is not an inconsequential phenomenon.

Think about that. Coming out has a reality beyond our individual experience.

It is both a unique and a shared experience—one that unites us in some fundamental way.

Our sexuality, our gayness, is mostly invisible to others. Coming out and being out involves being visible—both when we look in the mirror and when others see us.

Sometimes, in order to be visible to others, we have to be “in their face.” Sometimes we need to tell our stories, each of us, story after story, after story, until they “get it.”

Because “they” are still trying to define “us,” tell us who they think we are, tell us that we are objectively disordered or immoral or sinful or worse.

Who are “they” and who do they think they are?

Unfortunately “they” are not only the ignorant and bigoted, but often otherwise intelligent and sometimes even well-meaning individuals.

Why do “they” think they know more about our sexuality, or us, than we do?

More to the point, why do they care?

Certainly “they” outnumber “us” and we’ve always been an easy target. Does their inability to save our souls or change us, or to limit our freedom somehow make them inadequate or fearful?

What is in it for “them” that they so persist?

It amazes and frustrates me that our stories—the actual lived experience of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender individuals—are so summarily ignored, discounted, and dismissed.

It baffles me that many vocal and influential individuals persist in holding to and disseminating absurd, erroneous, and irrelevant opinions about us.

This is unacceptable and can no longer be tolerated.

“They” can only make their own positions tenable by repeating questionable scriptures, fabricated “studies,” pseudo-science, and outright lies—and repeating them over and over as they wholly disregard us and our voices.

I can only pose a few questions for others to try to answer:

What is it about homosexuality and sexual and gender non-conformity that makes it such a lightning rod?

What is so unique about it that religious factions condemn it, regressive governments ban it, entire cultures punish it, and ordinary people are moved to hatred and violence by it?

Why are millions of dollars spent to fight us and to deny us equal protections under the law?

These questions underlie the need to tell my story. As for the first question—whether my story or experiences will matter to the readers or not—is for each of them to decide. But I do know that this is my voice and my truth, for what it’s worth.

For me the value in telling my story here, beyond the healing, is to preserve a tiny slice of collective history—to document what it was to be gay and to come out in a particular time and place. I want to remember all the others who were there along with me, creating our lives together and defining our sexuality as we went along.

My hope is that others find some value in that as well.

With Fondness and Love,
Frank

THE HATE AND LIES CONTINUE

As one of my Facebook readers said, a rare sign for those who are
prone to express such sentiments:
All of the words are spelled correctly

BUT OF COURSE IT IS OK IF THEY WAVE THEIR BIBLES AND PUT A CROSS AND AN AMERICAN FLAG ON IT AND BRAND IT AS REPUBLICAN.

As I say in the epilogue of my memoir:
"Our sexuality, our gayness, is mostly invisible to others. Coming out and being out involves being visible—both when we look in the mirror and when others see us. Sometimes, in order to be visible to others, we have to be “in their face.”

Sometimes we need to tell our stories, each of us, story after story, after story, until they “get it.”
Because “they” are still trying to define “us,” tell us who they think we are, tell us that we are objectively disordered or immoral or sinful or worse.

Who are “they” and who do they think they are?

Unfortunately “they” are not only the ignorant and bigoted, but often otherwise intelligent and sometimes even well-meaning individuals. Why do “they” think they know more about our sexuality, or us, than we do? More to the point, why do they care?

Certainly “they” outnumber “us” and we’ve always been an easy target. Does their inability to save our souls or change us, or to limit our freedom somehow make them inadequate or fearful? What is in it for “them” that they so persist?

It amazes and frustrates me that our stories—the actual lived experience of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender individuals—are so summarily ignored, discounted, and dismissed.

It baffles me that many vocal and influential individuals persist in holding to and disseminating absurd, erroneous, and irrelevant opinions about us.

This is unacceptable and can no longer be tolerated.

“They” can only make their own positions tenable by repeating questionable scriptures, fabricated “studies,” pseudo-science, and OUTRIGHT LIES —and repeating them over and over as they wholly disregard us and our voices.

Flag-waving, Bible-thumping

I received one of those Flag-waving, bible thumping emails today and this was my response: 

The problem as I see it is that God has been co-opted to serve the prejudices of whoever thinks they have the corner on truth. 

People of dubious faith pick and choose what parts of the bible suit them: they will use passages to condemn gays and lesbians but think it perfectly OK not to feed the hungry or clothe the naked. 

They will complain about being persecuted but ignore the treatment of blacks, Muslims, the handicapped and disabled, the mentally challenged or the disfigured, the homeless, the poor, all of whom their bible in one way or another instructs them to respect, serve and alleviate their suffering. 

They attribute to God their silly notions of using weather to punish a geographical area for some transgression or another but deny the science of climate change. 

They enjoy the privilege of health care while denying affordable health care to the masses.

I'm getting really tired of having so-called "Christianity" shoved in my face. 

And it reminds me of a re-write I did of another post back a couple of years ago. I'll insert the revised edition here:

As Published in Today's American Catholic  April 2013

A Reflection on Easter Past: The Last Station of the Cross 

by Frank DeFrancesco

I write this as one with deep roots in the Catholic tradition, but I have been cut off from the Catholic community for so long now, that I barely speak the language.  I went from Et cum spiritu tuo to being a Catholic in exile and finally to being a man without a church.  

Before I go on, you should know that I struggled, perhaps for too long and needlessly, with my God-given sexuality throughout my childhood, adolescence and young adulthood.  It was a sometimes arduous journey with confessors and penances, and therapists and tears along the way, until I was finally able to accept and fully embrace my gay identity at the age of 36. I knew then I could not sit at a communal table where I was not fully welcome.

Now, when I look at the Catholic Church from my vantage point in the secular world, I experience a brief, but telling, twinge of homesickness in spite of the fact that I notice the broken windows, the crumbling bricks and the old men in funny clothes talking about who they won’t let in.  

But I am well aware of the more mature realizations that I have come to: that I have no Ruby Slippers and I cannot go home; that my home has ceased to exist; and that perhaps that home always was an illusion.  

It sometimes saddens me that I cannot conform, or bring myself to believe any longer in the Catholic myths or mysteries.  In some respect, my life would have been much easier if I had fit the parameters of what is acceptable.  If I could have listened, prayed, communed, participated as, for example, the male head of a neat, little, nuclear, heterosexual family rather than as someone who was condemned, shunned, and ultimately exiled.  

If my authenticity and conscience had remained unchallenged, my life as a Catholic would have been so easy, wouldn’t it?  

But I have moved on, and that is good.  I now rarely see the inside of a church, except for funerals – and that only out of respect for the family of a deceased relative or friend.  I don’t celebrate the religious holydays and am less inclined to celebrate even the secular aspects of religious holidays: I no longer get ashes on Ash Wednesday nor do I weave palm fronds into crosses on Palm Sunday like my father taught me and his father taught him; I no longer fast or abstain out of any religious obligation or sit in a pew moved by the liturgy of Holy Saturday; OK, I confess that I did indulge in a chocolate Easter bunny – but that’s about it.

What Gethsemane has brought me to this place on the hill where I gaze upon a man who is broken and bloody for his message of love?

I could talk about Dignity, a faith community of Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Trans Catholics that I was a part of, where, for a time, I shared a wistful hope and a grounded belief that the Catholic Church might come to a new, brave and enlightened understanding of our lived experience as gay men and women and embrace us in the love of Christ.

I could talk about the Alice-in-Wonderland-Theology that, in its lack of wisdom and logic, would theoretically allow me to sin and to repent repeatedly under a great burden of guilt - but deny me the sacraments if I entered into a committed, loving relationship with another man.   

I could talk about the all too many priests I knew who, using similar illogic had “reasoned away” their commitment to celibacy, and were living in sexual relationships with other men – priests who continued to say Mass and consecrate bread and wine, while representing the Church that condemned me and my sexuality and required me to be celibate, despite my never having taken a vow.

I could talk about how I turned the other cheek, again and again, so that the Church hierarchy - its popes and bishops and priests - but specifically in the person of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, could slap me harder, and repeatedly, until the final blow, calling me and those like me “objectively disordered”, and having a “more or less strong tendency toward moral evil”.  

Those words were uttered in all seriousness and lacked even a hint of compassion.  After some reflection, and deeply hurt, I finally lost heart and walked away.

But what I really want to talk about is what I call the “New” Catholic Church – the one that has seemingly transformed itself over the past thirty years so that I no longer recognize it.  And they say the Church is slow to change!

It seems this “New” Catholic Church, has abandoned the poor, the marginalized and the victimized, all of whom, like Christ on his walk to Golgotha, have received exceptionally brutal treatment by “believers” of many stripes in recent times.  

It seems this “New” Catholic Church has been disturbingly silent on matters that cry out for love, justice and compassion but has been disturbingly vocal on issues that promote divisiveness, hate and conservative ideologies.  

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church speaking on behalf of the struggling working classes and the poor on whose backs the wealthy thrive like parasites? – a church that had always professed a belief in "an option for the poor".

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church speaking out against the hoarding of obscene wealth by corporations and individuals who hold greed as a virtue? – a church that had always professed a belief in the words of Jesus that it is “harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to go through a needle's eye”?

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church on behalf of Mother Earth, condemning the waste, the wanton disregard for the environment and the wanton use of limited resources by the wealthy few while the poor are left to subsist on table scraps? – a church that had always professed to hold creation sacred.

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church on behalf of those who have no option for health care or who cannot afford health care? – a church that had always professed that it is a work of mercy to care for the sick.

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church speaking out against the evangelization of government? – a church that had always professed a belief in the words of Jesus to "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church speaking out against the atrocities perpetrated by pedophile priests?  or speaking with humility to put the victims of abuse ahead of its need to hide the truth? – a church that had taught the spiritual grace of humility, penance and repentance.

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church on behalf of gay and lesbian and transgender children – too many of whom take their own lives or are the victims of violence? – a church that professes an unconditional support of all life but for its own nearsighted doctrines, actually puts these children at risk rather than embrace and acknowledge them as authentic children of God.

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church rising in outrage against so-called evangelists who take advantage of the elderly and other vulnerable followers to aggrandize themselves and amass personal wealth?

Where is the voice of the Catholic Church speaking out against a fanatical so-called “christian" church that pickets funerals of American servicemen, gays and others with signs that proclaim, "God hates..."?

Where, indeed!  Instead, over the past years the Catholic Church spoke out lest women receive health services it disapproves of.

Instead they reneged on their mission and service to the poor, the sick and orphans rather than provide health benefits to legally married spouses of employees; they closed their doors rather than allow children to go to “non-traditional,” loving homes.

Instead they loudly condemn the love and commitment of two men or two women in marriage while they tolerate the annulments, divorces and serial marriages of opposite sex couples, all the while waving a banner proclaiming the "Sanctity of Marriage".

Instead they excommunicated an intelligent, dedicated religious Sister for making a difficult, conscientious, life-or-death medical decision to save a woman's life while under her hospital's purview.

Instead they denied communion to a woman at her mother's funeral Mass instead of offering the sacrament in love and compassion.

Instead they withdrew financial support from a homeless shelter because the director advocates same-gender marriage, even though they say they believe in the merciful work to "shelter the homeless".

Instead they intimidated the religious Sisters in America who have been living and working in the true spirit of the gospels and under the guidance provided by the Second Vatican Council.

You get the gist. 

It is no longer an option for me to try to "change things from within".  There was a time when I thought it was possible, when being a “dissenting” Catholic was an authentic option.  I think this is no longer the case.  The "New" Catholic Church is a different church altogether.  I do no not recognize this new heretical church and I think it has lost whatever vestige of moral authority it had left.   

I cannot help but imagine that if Jesus Christ could see his "followers" today, He would certainly "turn in his grave" so to speak. The passion of Christ lives on, but Resurrection seems highly unlikely. 

Frank DeFrancesco, critic and sometimes apologist, was educated in Catholic schools, received a BA from St Michael’s College, Vermont and an MA from St Joseph College, Connecticut.  A former member of the board of Dignity Hartford, Frank lives with his husband of 27 years and their dog Bennie who was named in spite of that other Pope.

How Right-Wing Media Are Welcoming Pope Francis To America

UTTERLY DISPICABLE!

Apparently the conservatives/Republicans are now more infallible than the Pope (who, of course, doesn't claim to be, really)

These folks should be shamed and shunned and called out.

New Billboard in Morehead Kentucky and New Comments 9/22/15

New Billboard in Morehead, Kentucky.

I haven't posted much about this ridiculous "religious" controversy but I think this says it all:

The group writes, on its website:

Following the June 26th Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, Rowan County clerk Kim Davis refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in her home state, citing that doing so compromised her religious beliefs. That day, she became the poster child for the anti-gay movement.

As has been painstakingly observed time and time again, the anti-LGBTQ movement is comprised of a substantial number of zealots who unfailingly refer to their rigid interpretation of religious text to narrowly define “traditional” institutions and values. They pick and choose what they wish to convey as immoral and unacceptable, while seemingly sweeping lines of scripture just a few letters away completely under the rug.
In response, Planting Peace has constructed a message for Kim Davis and the anti-LGBTQ movement. The intent of the billboard is to expose this narrow interpretation by Davis and others that they use to defend their discrimination against the LGBTQ community. It is important and relevant to call this out, because these messages and actions are not simply about a political or religious debate. There are LGBTQ youth across the world who are taking their lives at an alarming rate because of these messages from society that make them feel broken or less than. We have to meet hate with love…intolerance with compassion.

OH - And where are all the other Christian denominations speaking out against this christian cult that picks which groups their bible says are not to be allowed civil rights or civil marriage?

EDITED POST: 9/22/15

I just want to express a few thoughts on the Kim Davis situation.

First, it is sad that so many people have lowered themselves to send her hate-mail or to name-call. It doesn't help our cause one bit, in fact makes us look like bullies and gives the anti-gay contingent ammunition. Reasoned arguments at least are not easily dismissed by intelligent people and well, those with closed minds don't listen anyway.

Second, has anyone considered the possibility that Davis' religion may be more cult-like than mainstream Christian denominations. I have dealt with people who've been involved with extreme fundamentalist groups and they are literally brainwashed into their beliefs. They hold on to them as if in dread of what might happen if their beliefs turn out to be wrong - and in the case of many gay youth, often through counseling they are able to recognize that their belief system is a great source of pain and confusion. I sense that Kim has bought into such a system because it has provided her a means to repudiate her past life and its disappointments and bad choices. What she may not know is that her current belief system may be fraught with other disappointments and bad choices.

It is easy to say she needs psychiatric intervention [above], but realistically, until her religion is shook at the foundations she will hang on tight. However, Kim, in the interview hints at this possibility of a crumbling belief system when she says her greatest fear is that God does not approve of her, that she may in fact be a hypocrite. I say, give her time. In five or ten years she will write a book about her recovery from this cult.

Third, where are the mainstream Protestant and Catholic denominations and leaders speaking out to say that Kim Davis does not speak for all Christians? Clearly she does not when many denominations approve of same-sex marriage now. Is the "religious freedom" issue too hot a potato to handle? Are they all afraid to put themselves in that position?