Clapback Comes for the Archbishop, Part Two

Last updated on: September 30, 2019 at 6:31 pm by Gabriel Blanchard

Clapback Comes for the Archbishop, Part Two 2019-09-30T18:31:51-04:00 Gabriel Blanchard

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Part One

And now, let’s pivot to my dissatisfaction with Archbishop Chaput’s column. He lays out several discrete concerns about Fr Martin’s ministry, helpfully numbered. Let’s begin at the beginning.

1. Father Martin suggests that same-sex attracted people and people with gender dysphoria should be labelled according to their attraction and dysphoria … But while the Church does teach that the body is integral to human identity, our sexual appetites do not define who we are. If we are primarily defined by our sexual attractions, then, in order to be fulfilled, it would follow that we must identify with and act on our attractions.

The first problem with this is that Fr Martin didn’t say that. I dug up the article to which His Excellency alludes, and what Fr Martin in fact said is this:

Naming LGBT people what they ask to be named is part of the “respect” called for by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This may be the most important reason to use the term LGBT … Refusing to call a group by the name that most in the group prefer borders on disrespect. LGBT youth, who are often harrassed, bullied, and “called names,” are especially attentive to disrespectful language.

The difference between His Excellency’s “should be labelled by their attractions” and Fr Martin’s “should be labelled as they prefer” is enormous. The one presumes that the label is philosophically reductive (thus incidentally showing the author’s unfamiliarity with LGBT activism and literature); the other recognizes that it is common politeness to address people as they ask you to. And common politeness is the form that respect most often takes.

As for the Archbishop’s theoretical basis for refusing to use such language, well, Fr Martin addressed that too, in the same piece.

When people describe themselves as LGBT it does not mean that they consider their sexuality or [gender] identity the dominant trait of their personhood, any more than people who refer to themselves as “Italian Catholics” or “elderly Catholics” consider this the dominant trait. … Using an adjective is not equivalent to defining a person or group in terms of one characteristic. Likewise, the term does not constitute a declaration of support for a political ideology or theological position. For example, when a young person identifies as “gay” or “lesbian,” he or she is simply expressing a part of who he or she is, not making a claim about any controversial issues.

Speaking from my own experiences as a gay man and occasional activist before and since converting to Catholicism, Fr Martin is completely correct. In fifteen years as an out queer person, I can count literally on the fingers of one hand the number of queer-identifying people who consider LGBT language to imply any specific philosophy of the human person; it isn’t even usually a philosophy of sex. Anyone who has spent time in queer spaces will tell you that holding labels lightly and being willing to alter our usage (and, especially, respecting the labels others use) is accepted etiquette among us, precisely because we don’t reduce ourselves or one another to these labels—precisely because these labels are personal and social rather than ontological, and are governed by the rules of social interactions accordingly. And two of the big rules of social interactions are: don’t tell other people what they mean, and don’t ignore them when they ask you to address them as they prefer.

Excursus: LGBT Language

Images via Pixabay

Church

gay

language

Previous Post

September 23, 2019

Clapback Comes for the Archbishop, Part One

Next Post

September 30, 2019 Clapback Comes for the Archbishop, Excursus: LGBT Language

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abuse antifascism art bad Catholic celibacy chastity Church crucifixion culture war eros forgiveness gay gender homophobia ikons language liturgy peace poems politics Pope Francis prayer pro-life race recommendations reform repentance review sacraments saints satire scandal schism scripture sex suffering theology Uncategorized violence

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Vanity of vanities! Everything is fleeting and meaningless. Where is this pessimistic proclamation found?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalms Ecclesiastes Proverbs Job