Fr. Martin's New Book

I'm about half way through Fr. James Martin's new book, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. It only took me one rather short reading session to get through 50 pages. I don't think I've ever rolled my eyes while reading a book written by a priest as much as I have with this book, which is funny because at one point Fr. Martin notes that the reader is probably rolling his eyes. The closest I get to rolling my eyes with other Church leaders is when I read things Pope Francis says sometimes. Maybe it's a Jesuit thing.

Fr. Martin argues like a lawyer or a politician, meaning he appears to have a goal in mind and takes whatever step he needs to take to get there, even if it means being subtle, crafty, slightly manipulative (dare I say deceptive?). He makes cheap shots at times, employs a few scare words, and relies on the unquestioned assumptions of readers. I find that many things he says are unpersuasive if you just ask a few deeper questions. That being said, the assumptions he relies on are ones generally accepted by everyone in our culture, so it would be persuasive to many and meet them where they're at, so to speak.

As an example, he says that everyone deserves respect, and part of being respectful means calling people by the labels they choose for themselves. Therefore, the Catholic hierarchy should not use any terms for LGBT+ people except the terms they choose for themselves. But do we really believe everyone deserves respect? Do we really believe respecting people requires calling them by whatever they wish to be called? If a terrorist told Fr. Martin he preferred to be called "martyr" or "God's chosen servant", would Fr. Martin use the terrorist's self-chosen labels? Ah, but a terrorist doesn't deserve respect! But just a minute ago everyone deserved respect? Well, then, everyone, except every guilty person, deserves respect. Who, then is innocent? A murderer isn't innocent and so I can call him a murderer even if he doesn't like the term. What about a divorced and remarried person? If he is not innocent, then he needs not have any of my respect, and I can call him an adulterer and still be a charitable Christian. And if a senator said a lie two decades ago, perhaps I can address him as liar when I meet him, or should I address him with respect?

The unquestioned assumptions here are that we believe everyone deserves respect, and that respect means addressing people as they wish to be addressed, when we really don't believe this in practice. I don't call a suicide bomber "God's chosen servant and glorious martyr", even if that's the way he would want to be identified. At this point, I can see someone saying, "How dare you compare an LGBT person to a terrorist or a murderer!" And this reveals another unquestioned assumption, that LGBT people are fundamentally different from murderers or terrorists. Perhaps LGBT people don't want to be compared with murderers and terrorists because they themselves have dehumanized and marginalized murderers and terrorists. A murderer or a terrorist, despite his actions, is still a child of God and fundamentally deserving of love and respect, am I right? What right has an LGBT person (or any other sinner) to accept for himself God's unconditional love and forgiveness and acceptance but to deny this for other types of sinners? What right have I to say that, despite of my continuing sinfulness, I am on the innocent side of the line and deserve respect, while at the same time another person's sins places him on the guilty side, and he deserves none?

I would argue, ultimately, that every sinner has the right to be treated as a child of God, but not every sinner has the right to have his sinfulness addressed with terms of respect. And so, if a label a person chooses for himself whitewashes or legitimizes sinful behavior he may be engaging in, I think we have the right to refuse to use that label. But, at the same time, we should not use labels that dehumanize or harm people, no matter what their sins may be. A person should not be identified by his sins, neither to praise the sin, nor to dehumanize the person. But this is just my position. 

Now, back to the book...

This is not to say I hate the book so far. About midway through he pulls a surprise (for me, at least), suddenly turning his critical gaze from the "institutional church" to the LGBT community, spotlighting several ways they are themselves hypocritical. For instance, he points out the way that many gay activists ridicule our old conservative prelates for wearing the traditional, beautiful Catholic vestments. This ridicule only works by appealing to homophobia. People who are not homophobic will not be scandalized or ashamed of seeing men wearing silky, lacy, flowery clothes. And, while he points out that many gay people are more compassionate because they suffered shaming, ridicule, and bullying in their lives, many other LGBT people employ shame, ridicule, and bullying on others who oppose or differ from them with devastating cruelty (my words, not Fr. Martin's).

Another criticism of the LGBT community he makes is their refusal to recognize that many (most) Church leaders are acting in good faith when they speak about the issue of homosexuality. Church leaders have difficult jobs with a lot of things to balance, as well as promises and duties to hand on the faith of the Apostles, whatever that may be. This is not an easy or straightforward task, and many in the LGBT community simply dismiss the sincerity and goodwill of those who are charged with it. At the same time, some in the LGBT community themselves lack goodwill and sincerity in dealing with leaders of the Church, which further exacerbates the divide.

In short, I find this book so far to be thought-provoking, though I think it is lacking in places in transparency and has an overall sense of being jesuitical. But, what did I expect? Now, to continue reading...