Male chastity belt drawing from Wikipedia. Since most clergy members are still male this might be a way for my denomination to start enforcing its policies.
By Magdalena I. García
Every week I read several newspapers online—old habits that a former newsroom manager finds hard to shake off—and some of my favorites include The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, on this side of the Atlantic, and El País (from Spain), on the other side of the same ocean. It’s interesting to compare what makes front-page news from one city or country to the other, or what angle is used to cover the same story.
Of course, for the past couple of weeks, all publications have had lots of coverage on Haiti. But other topics are starting to claim center stage. Late yesterday and early this morning the latimes.com had this heading on the front page: “Top military officer wants to allow gays to serve openly.” In a nutshell, as Julian E. Barnes reports, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel yesterday in Washington that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”
This is a huge step (in the right direction, in my opinion). And I was really impressed with one of the quotes attributed to Mullen in the closing of the news report: “No matter how I look at the issue,” he said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
It’s a strange world we live in. You’d think that quote would be attributed not to a military man but to a clergy person (or other religious leader). Aren’t we supposed to be the ones “troubled by the fact” that the world is full of injustices, such as denying a segment of the population basic civil rights on account of their sexual orientation? And why aren’t we troubled by the fact that most religious organizations, instead of leading the way on this justice issue have either the same policy as the military (“don’t ask, don’t tell”), or something even worse in its place.
For example, my own denomination has a constitutional requirement that church officers (which includes ordained laity and clergy) live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (section G-6.0106b of The Book of Order). This is not only unfair, it is extremely unrealistic and hypocritical. You can argue that we still make a big deal about marital infidelity, and we should, although we have yet to extend this benefit to covenants between people of the same gender. But when was the last time that “chastity in singleness” was applied to heterosexuals as a criterion for ordination? As one clergy colleague who recently served Florida churches put it, “Nobody is asking single, heterosexual retirees to choose chastity, and we gladly accept their leadership and their offerings from unreduced Social Security checks.”
Forget retirees. Nobody is asking young, single, and actively-employed church members for a virginity or abstention proof prior to ordination and service; that is, unless they are homosexuals. So shouldn’t we be troubled by this fact?
You can read the entire text of the news report at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-dont-ask3-2010feb03,0,5202709.story
No comments:
Post a Comment