IGF CultureWatch

Originally appeared March 20, 2002, in the Chicago Free Press.

The recent disclosure of improper sexual contacts between Catholic youths and Catholic priests in the Boston archdiocese and elsewhere is what journalists call a "developing story" - one that is still unfolding, in which new information can be expected on a weekly if not daily basis, and whose implications have not yet fully been grasped.

Yet even at this early stage it seems worthwhile to try to separate out some of the basic issues involved, if only to avoid succumbing to the enormous amounts of "spin" promoted by the archdiocese, the Vatican and various interest groups.

Sexual contacts between priests and young people seem improper for at least three reasons:

1. Priests, as priests, promise to live a life of celibacy, commonly understood by laymen to mean abstinence from sexual relations or sexually arousing contacts.

Sexual contacts with young people seem to violate the very letter of that promise. In addition, they seem to do so in a clandestine, even secretive fashion, targeting those who are not only the most pliant and suggestible, but also the easiest to intimidate, shame or bribe into silence. More than one accuser has told of a priest blessing him after their sexual contacts.

To be sure, we all know of Catholic clerics who interpret the promise of celibacy more narrowly to mean abstinence from sexual intercourse proper, or abstinence from intercourse with women or simply remaining unmarried. And, to be sure, clerical celibacy was originally imposed primarily to prevent priests from having (legitimate) children they might wish to pass on property to.

But to the extent that the church promotes or allows a sharp divergence between lay and clerical understanding - on this as on so many other matters - instances where priestly behavior publicly contradicts popular understanding are an understandable cause for that gravest of all clerical sins, "scandalizing the faithful."

2. Priests are in a position of responsibility, delegated by parents, when dealing with young people.

Catholic parents often teach their children to trust and obey the priest, confident that priests have their children's interests at heart as much as the parents do, will treat the youths with respect and dignity, and will do their best to guide and protect them.

When parents find that priests' behavior with youths are for their own benefit - viz. erotic gratification of whatever sort - rather than for the children's benefit, parents justifiably feel that priests have betrayed their trust, the more offensively so because the parents taught it to the youths, never thinking that they needed to warn or caution their children about priests.

3. Priests are in a position of authority when dealing with all parishioners, but especially young people in their charge.

Many Catholic youths are taught that the priest is the person who can teach them what is right and moral, perhaps even more reliably than their parents, and who is obligated in his own conduct to exemplify those virtues, even more reliably than their parents. We might say that that is pretty much the basic job description for a priest; the rest is ritual and ceremony.

If young people feel a priest's conduct toward them violates that assumption, then their whole idea of who and what is a valid source of moral and ethical information seems falsified, in fact, completely reversed. Either the authority of the teachers or the teaching is called into question, perhaps both in a mutually destructive contradiction.

Specifically, just as parents resent their children being imposed upon, so too young people must find it deeply disturbing to realize - either gradually or in a sudden realization - that the priest is not treating them as a person for whom he has concern but as a means for his own gratification. This can hardly fit with the view of a priest as caring and benevolent.

In addition, people such as priests can, merely by virtue of their authority but also because of their greater age, be felt as applying great pressure to do as they say even against a younger, more vulnerable person's better judgment and personal inclination. That perceived pressure to violate one's own judgment and inclination is what can harm young people psychologically.

If we turn to various explanations of how these incidents come about and how to prevent them, we face a babel of opinions.

Pope John Paul II's personal spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls has tried to place the blame on homosexual priests, claiming that gay men should not be priests at all. But if estimates of the large proportion of homosexuals in the American priesthood are anywhere near correct, even if "homosexual" priests were involved, it would be only a small proportion who behaved improperly.

But more to the point, and contrary to Navarro-Valls, it seems likely that priests who are attracted to other adult men, to say nothing of priests actually involved with other adult men, are not likely to seek involvement with immature males.

Some liberal critics suggest that an (ostensibly) celibate priesthood is somehow responsible. That may be true but not because self-aware, self-accepting robustly heterosexual youths are unlikely to volunteer for a celibate priesthood. After all, self-aware, self-accepting homosexual youths would seem no more likely to be drawn to a celibate priesthood.

The Catholic church will have to search wider and deeper into its doctrines and its history for the sources of its current troubles.

Originally appeared March 20, 2002, in the Chicago Free Press.

I have seen the post-gay world, and it serves really good beer.

My girlfriend and I were having dinner at a restaurant and bar nestled on the edge of the gay-friendly Chicago neighborhood of Andersonville, when we looked around.

The barkeep was a transwoman. There was a gay waiter and a lesbian chef. A group of gay men were flirting on the high barstools.

But something was missing.

There was no rainbow sticker on the door. Or neon rainbow in the window. Or anything external to denote this establishment as a gay bar.

And do you know why?

It isn't one.

T's calls itself a place "for everyone" and surprisingly, it really is. The same night we were there, two straight couples were playing pool. In fact, T's manages to be a place where it is as comfortable to bring your parents for dinner or straight friends for a drink as it is to flirt with a same-sex stranger or kiss your girlfriend. Perhaps even more amazingly, it is equally welcome to men and women-unlike a majority of places in gay ghettos, where gay men are often made uncomfortable in lesbian bars and vice versa.

T's is able to be most things to most people because it intentionally reaches out to all of its constituencies. It hosts regular womens' nights, sponsors gay sports teams and employs gay staff - but it also employs straight staff, and has events that also appeal to straight folks, such as Superbowl Sunday parties and the recent run of a quirky play devoted to drinking and writing.

In fact, T's is a pretty good representation of what it might be like to live in an (ideal) post-gay world.

What do I mean by post gay? I mean a world where gay couples aren't stared at, commented on or (heaven forbid) battered as they walk down the street holding hands or kissing.

I mean a world where being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered is interesting in the same way that learning that someone is left-handed or a twin is interesting - it is a fact about the individual that affects their worldview, but says nothing about his or her character, interests or politics.

By post gay, I mean a world where a lesbian marriage or a gay man in the military or a transgendered president is barely even remarked upon by the media gauntlet.

I first started imagining a post-gay world when I learned that a friend who worked part time as an advisor to a lesbitrans community at a Boston-area women's college no longer had a job.

"The students decided there was no need for an advisor anymore," my friend's life-partner told me. "They fit in fine and they just want to be students, not lesbian students or bi students."

The lesbians at this particular college can do this because their needs are being met. They face little discrimination or prejudice from the student body or administration. In fact, there is constant outreach to their community from faculty, staff and administrators. If students need something or are concerned about something, it is not difficult to find a friendly ear tuned to their frequency. They don't have to stay in their emotional or physical gay ghetto to be safe, because they feel safe where ever they are on campus.

For these lucky students, there's nothing to fight for and so they don't have to fight - they can just be.

There are pockets of places around the world like this - not only my own neighborhood of Andersonville (and upon closer reflection, most of it seems to be post-gay, not just this one bar), but also the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, the small college towns of Northampon, Mass. and Madison, Wis., parts of New York and Paris and most of San Francisco, Amsterdam and Stockholm.

The entire world, unfortunately, will likely never be post-gay. There will always be small redneck towns and large, unfriendly cities where gay people are not welcome. That's because post-gay places need a combination of things to make them possible: anti-discrimination laws, a strong gay and lesbian community, and a marketplace and political establishment that's responsive and pro-active to our needs. Being post-gay is more than cold tolerance; it is an understanding that GLBTs offer unique contributions that benefit everyone and should be sought out.

A post-gay world, which can only happen after the end of discrimination, isn't a place where we are all the same - it is a place where the needs of each of us are met equally. A place where we all feel safe and welcome. So in a post-gay bar, a lesbian might come to play pool after softball and a gay man might be flirting with his new lover while sitting next to a straight man doing the same thing.

A post-gay world is one where we are all just folks, sitting around talking and having a really good beer.

Originally appeared March 20, 2002, in the Chicago Free Press.

Celebrities, like ordinary folks, come out for a variety of reasons.

Some do it because they are tired of hiding and the psychological pressure of concealing their true identity becomes too much.

Some do it because they have no choice-they were outed.

Some do it to seem cooler to younger people, or to give a shot of adrenaline to a faltering career.

Some do it because they have been swayed by the strong argument that America's comfort with gays and lesbians is dependent on our visibility. And then we have Rosie.

For years, many of us have been calling on Rosie O'Donnell to come out. We mentioned the sly way she alluded to being a lesbian; we noted that she appeared with her partner in public. People like her, we said. With Rosie on our side, people might not be so quick to say that they don't know any gays or lesbians.

Yet for the longest time, Rosie didn't come out. She wouldn't come out. She would joke and hint and wink, but the word "lesbian" didn't cross her lips when she was speaking to the public.

And so we were mad at her.

But it seems that Rosie knew best all along. Because by picking her moment, she has sparked a national conversation about gay and lesbian adoption. Now she is proving that if anyone can change hearts in the heartland when it comes to adopting children, it is Rosie.

Last week, Rosie, who has three young, adopted children, spoke honestly and openly to Diane Sawyer about why it is unfair that gays and lesbians can't adopt children in Florida.

"I don't think it negates your skills as a parent if you1re homosexual," she said in her friendly, straightforward way. "I do think the kids will get teased and in some capacity that's very sad, and eventually I think that it will stop. ... Would it be easier for them if I were married to a man? It probably would. But as I said to my son, Parker, if you were to have a daddy, you wouldn't have me as a mommy. Because I'm the kind of mommy who wants another mommy."

Rosie is coming forward now because she recently learned that even though she can parent foster children in Florida, where she keeps a second home, a 1977 law prohibits adoption of those same children by any gays and lesbians, including herself.

Then she learned of a gay couple, Steve Lofton and Roger Croteau, who are in a similar predicament.

Lofton and Croteau are raising five HIV-positive children. Three of those are foster children; two were adopted in Oregon. But one of the foster children, Bert, 10, no longer tests positive for HIV. And because he is under 14, says the ACLU, "he is now considered �adoptable." Which means that the state of Florida is actively seeking another home for Bert, even though he has been raised by Lofton and Croteau since he was nine weeks old.

Lofton and Croteau have joined other parents in a lawsuit fighting against Florida's law against gay adoption, the most conservative adoption law in the country. Now, "for the first time ever," says an ACLU statement, "a federal appeals court is weighing the constitutionality of banning gay adoption."

Florida's law against gay and lesbian adoption - even when those same gays and lesbians are approved foster parents - would be simply silly if it didn't break so many hearts and break up so many loving families.

There are a half million children in foster care in the United States, and 3,400 who are waiting for adoption in Florida. Nationally, 25,000 kids a year leave the foster care system not because they were adopted, but because they became too old. Few people want to adopt physically or mentally ill children.

Croteau and Lofton are two of those few. There is no logical reason why they can't adopt the children they have raised. It is simply anti-gay bigotry.

In her interview, Rosie made this clear. "It takes a lot to become a foster parent," she told Sawyer. "You have to really want to save a child who others have deemed unsaveable. And for the state of Florida to tell anyone who's willing, capable, and able to do that, that they're unworthy, is wrong."

Rosie's interview has already changed minds.

On ABC's web page, one viewer commented, "Before tonight's show, I would say I was definitely against gay adoption. I do believe the gay life style is a sin. However ... I believe [some] sins do not carry more weight than others. So with that in mind, carrying out Florida's thinking, people who commit adultery are not fit to be parents, people who take the Lord's name in vain should not parents. Ideally, I would like to see kids with a mom and a dad, but it doesn't look likely for most foster kids. So any permanent loving and nurturing home is better than none."

That someone who seems to be a Christian fundamentalist would move that far in his or her position on gay adoption in the space of a two-hour interview is nothing short of a miracle.

By waiting to come out until she felt like she had a compelling reason, by worrying less about her public than about a vital cause, Rosie O'Donnell has done a great good. She has taken it upon herself to give the abstract idea of "gay parents" a human face - and better, a beloved face.

"I don't think America knows what a gay parent looks like: I am the gay parent," Rosie said.

All we can hope for is that America will take her message to heart the way they have taken her television show into their homes.

Originally appeared March 13, 2002, in the Chicago Free Press.

LAST FALL, the United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism, the largest branch of American Judaism, issued a new Torah and commentary titled "Etz Hayim" - "tree of life" - that includes several background essays discussing recent scholarship on the bible and Near Eastern archaeological findings.

According to the March 9 New York Times account, the new Torah, the first in 60 years for conservative Jews, is particularly notable because the new scholarship shows that the early books of the bible have no historical validity.

The Garden of Eden? An etiological myth. Noah and the flood? A legend that arose in Mesopotamia suggested by the regular flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Sodom and Gomorrah? Another myth. Abraham? Like most legendary founders, he probably never existed.

The Israelite captivity in Egypt and the Exodus probably never occurred. There are no Egyptian sources mentioning an Israelite presence and no archaeological evidence anywhere for Israelites wandering in the Sinai - "not a pottery shard," as Rabbi David Wolpe put it.

There was no Israelite conquest of Palestine. Instead, there was a gradual and largely peaceful settlement. And Jericho? It didn't have any walls and it wasn't even inhabited when Joshua's "battle of Jericho" supposedly occurred.

King David? If he existed at all, and there is some dispute, was probably a local tribal leader whose importance was later inflated to promote religious pride. There is an "almost total absence of archaeological evidence" for a sizable Jerusalem at that time.

These and other modern findings have long been accepted by most bible scholars and seminary teachers. They are well known by most priests, ministers and rabbis. But they have not been widely shared with the laity in the pews, so they may even come as a surprise to readers here. Nonetheless, they are now the views of most scholars and supported by substantial evidence.

Why clergy are reluctant to share this information with laymen is a topic for another time. But perhaps intelligent laymen will not be so shocked. After I wrote a column on the Sodom legend, a conservative Jewish friend asked why I bothered. "Some people believe those bible stories," I said. He shook his head. "Fairy tales," he said. "They're just fairy tales."

This growing willingness to face historical evidence is significant for gay men because two key texts religious conservatives cite to attack gay men are in the Leviticus "Holiness Code" purportedly given by the biblical god Yahweh to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Do not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abhorrence" - as the new Torah translates it.

But if there was no Exodus, no wandering in the desert and probably no Moses, then there was no revelation on Sinai and the prohibition of homosexuality lacks divine authority. It is merely the human creation of ancient Jewish scribes.

In fact, so far as biblical scholars can tell, based on internal evidence, the Holiness Code (Leviticus chs. 17-26) was probably compiled no earlier than 750 B.C., and maybe as late as 550 B.C. - far later than the purported revelation on Sinai (traditionally between 1200 and 1450 B.C.) The code was then "backdated" by being inserted into the Moses legend to give it divine authority.

Examined carefully, noting various repetitions and inconsistencies, that section of Leviticus seems to combine at least two sets of laws by different writers who did not entirely agree on what was important and what the penalties should be.

For example, Lev. 18:22 says that anyone who does a number of things including homosexual sex "shall be cut off from his people" because the acts are "unclean." But the scribe who wrote Lev. 20:13, perhaps writing later, had much stronger feelings about homosexuals: "They shall be put to death," he inveighs; "Their blood shall be upon them."

Recognizing that there is no divine mandate to prohibit homosexuality, how do the compilers of the new Torah handle homosexuality? Well, some wanted to preserve the prohibition anyway.

"We couldn't come to a formulation that we could all be comfortable with," Rabbi Joseph Kushner said. "Some people felt that homosexuality was wrong." So the committee ended by saying that the prohibitions on homosexuality "have engendered considerable debate," but that conservative synagogues should "welcome gay and lesbian congregants in all congregational activities."

But while this step forward is welcome, a problem lingers. If homosexuality is wrong, we know from this Torah that it is cannot be wrong for theological reasons but for some secular reasons.

But if the reasons are secular, then people have an obligation to explain them, rather than just asserting their position, so we can examine them. But many people cannot give up age-old habits of thought, even when the rationale for them no longer has any validity.

But having readily dropped the Levitical mandate that gays should be killed, the new Torah would have been well-advised to abandon the idea that homosexuality is wrong and acknowledge that believing so is merely a cultural atavism.