Wednesday, 12 March 2014

The Particular

This morning I was very disturbed to read a report that the Ont*rio English C*tholic Te*chers' Association has decided to participate in Toronto's Pr*de Day Parade. Of course, it is an open secret among church-going Catholics in Toronto, at very least, that OEC*A is Catholic in name only. The same can be said for many of the actual English-speaking Cath*lic teachers in Ontario, I am very sorry to say.

I find it a horribly irony that the word that denotes this infamous parade is the first of the Seven Deadly Sins: pride. And the true aims of the parade are quite obviously a celebration of another deadly sin, which is lust. Note the remarks of a man named Danny Glen*right in this LifeSiteNews article.

I think it is particularly horrible to use the agony of little children who fall into the clutches of pedophiles to score points against someone. This is particularly horrible when this is used to justify sexual abuse of other children--in this case, adult men and women parading naked, or in sexually shocking or provocative costumes, where children are.

This may boggle your minds, but in Toronto some parents really do bring their children downtown to watch "the fun"--not just of this parade, but of something I believe is called the "Le*ther Fair." I was once walking with a left-wing pal through "Le*ther Fair" and at a stage where a lesbian comic was warming up for a obscenity-laced show, the comic paused for a moment and told some women with children that her act wasn't really suitable for children. The women said something like, "Ah. It's okay. It will be over their heads anyway."

Really? Because one of the most vivid memories of my childhood was a production of Doctor Faustus, in which all the roles were played by men, and a man dressed as Helen of Troy caressed the man playing Doctor Faustus. I had never seen a man dressed as a woman in my little life, nor had I ever heard a man saying, as said Doctor Faustus's servant, that he would use magic to make all the maidens of his parish dance around him naked.

My father, who had taken me to this university production, felt rather badly that he had taken me to see it, but I absolutely loved it. In fact, because of this fun play I hoped to become an actor myself and to join that very same super-glamorous medieval drama club when I grew up. And I DID. And compared to all the glamorous, smart, sophisticated, sexually active people in that club, my Catholic friends suddenly seemed so....boring.

In case you are wondering, the lesbian comic carried on with her child-unfriendly act.

Anyway, I mention Danny Glen*right by name (with * so he doesn't find us while Googling himself) because I scorn to do what he did, which is make cheap shots about a whole class of people. In his case the class was "priests". In my case, the class would be called "gays". However, I don't want to do that because I am not angry or horrified by everyone who calls himself (or, very rarely) herself "gay" but specifically at Danny Glen*right and any other person who thinks lewd behaviour in public is worth breaking the laws of the land for, no matter how many children might be around.

Also, I think sexuality is rather too fluid and complicated to box in with terminology. I do not really believe in "gays" or "straights" at all; I believe there are human beings with different sexual impulses or feelings, who make different sexual choices at different times in their lives, for different reasons. The vast majority of these people, whatever their "preference" are psychologically capable of having ordinary sexual relations that can lead to reproduction. A small minority are not. And like all orthodox Christians, I am not so cool on "pleasure" being the primary reason for anything including sexual behaviour. Pleasure is a nice bonus to, say, staying alive or having children or keeping your marriage alive, but you'll notice that temporarily giving up innocent pleasures, like coffee or meat or sleeping in or married sexual relations, is considered an important spiritual discipline.

I was off-my-head crazy about an older girl when I was 14. I didn't think it was a big deal. Books I read and, later, observations about high school, told me many girls tended to get over-emotional about other girls, and I would probably grow out of it. I grew out of it although, now that I think about it, a younger female friend broke my heart when I was in my early thirties. Dear me, how I cried.

Well, that's love, which is an entirely different beast from sex, no matter what anyone tells you. Love can certainly be mixed in with luv, which is to say, immoderate attachment to another human being, often against reason. I've had that for women, but not sexual desire or lust, which is a lack that got Charlotte of Sex & the City kicked out of her new super-cool, well-connected lesbian friends' club, if you recall that episode. I won't repeat what they said to Charlotte, for it was obscene. Basically it was that she had to do more than smile at everyone.

No, your Auntie only feels sexual desire or lust for men, and tries to keep that under the control of her God-given reason, and hopes to inspire nothing stronger than admiration or affection in the entire male population save your Uncle B.A. Which means that if there was any such thing as a "Straight Pride" parade, with so-called "straights" dancing about naked and, having consumed sufficient quantities of crystal meth, thrusting their hips at children on the pavement, I would be disgusted by that, too.

If it weren't so serious, I would have be terribly amused by the lovestruck, hand-holding, usually male couples (including teenage) presented to our attention by Scottish lawmakers during the g*y marriage debates. The idea presented was that marriage was about luv, when marriage has almost always been about sex, either having it, or presenting a respectable front to society while having it elsewhere, which an astonishing number of homosexu*l male "couples" plan to do. [Link is to an article with shocking language and themes albeit in the New York Times.) But marriage is not about luv, but about sex, familial companionship, joint projects (like parenthood) and doing chores when you don't want to and think the other person should be doing more of them. Sex, however, should be the servant of marriage, not marriage the servant of sex, just as reason should rule the passions, not the passions reason.

If 2% of Torontonians have strong homosexual desires that means there are about 58,000 individual Torontonians to whom Danny Glen*right is speaking. And I hope a goodly number of those 58,000, each having reason and responsibility for his or her own actions, will write to Danny Glen*right and say that they do not approve of adults dancing naked in front of children, and that they do not want them doing it in their name. Fifty-eight thousand people telling Danny Glen*right where he can stuff his attitude would do more to heal divisions in the community than any parade.


Sheila said...

I didn't know a thing about this event; yikes!

I am interested by your views on sexual attraction being fluid. I know in my case it is; I'm not attracted to "men" but to specific persons, for a variety of reasons, most of which aren't physical at all. Most women I know seem to hold this view, and sure enough, the Catholic l*sbians I know seem to be happily married fairly often.

The men, though? It seems to be much harder for them, perhaps because in their case attraction so often begins physically. I couldn't say, not being a man.

However, I want to recommend a blog about Catholics with SSA -- which includes Catholics without SSA -- called Spiritual Friendship. If you haven't read any of it, you might find it fruitful. On the one hand, it made me empathize a great deal more with Catholics who struggle with this; it's all very well to hear that there *are* some, and another to hear their individual stories and the things that have been crosses and helps to them. I'd like to provide fewer crosses and more helps!

And secondly, it talks a great deal about the Single Life, which of course most of the contributors live, and about the sort of Catholic community which would make the Single Life a lot less lonely. It definitely motivates me to work on Catholic community in my own parish -- which is sadly subdivided into the moms with toddlers, the homeschooling moms, the men's group, and ..... other people, who don't appear to have anything for them. It's not like there's some rule that I can only associate with other mothers!

Anyway, worth a look if you're not aware of it already.

Anonymous said...

I wrote a comment yesterday but something got mixed up and I didn't publish it!

I wanted to tell you that you are totally right - it is very ironic that 'pride' - as the worst of Deadly Sins, in my opinion - would be a badge of honour for participants in those parades. What a distorted thinking it is!

I've never thought of it that way before so thank you for making me think!

And thank you for having such a great blog, I love it!

Greetings from Croatia!

- Mira

Seraphic said...

Thank you, Sheila and Mira!

Sheila, that Spiritual Friendship blog sounds great. I'll have to have a look because naturally most Catholics with SSA are indeed going to be Single although some are of course in religious life and others are married to members of the opposite sex anyway.

Observant girls may have noticed that there are are a lot of soi-disant gay men out there who had children with their now ex-wives; less visible are men who have SSA and yet live happy chaste lives with their wives. Evelyn Waugh, who certainly experienced SSA as a university student, had seven children.

Also visible are girls who make out with girls to turn boys on at parties or in clubs. I cannot even begin to imagine what any of the saints would have to say about this kind of behaviour. I have a lot of sympathy for girls who have real SSA and none at all for amateur porn actresses acting out in public.

I once saw such a duo in a Toronto club and men stood around them in a circle watching, dead still in the middle of the dance floor, not moving, just watching. It was the creepiest scene I have ever seen in a club in my life, and I have been to clubs in five countries.

Heather in Toronto said...

I'm a great fan of the Spiritual Friendship blog, as well as the individual blogs of some of their contributors. A lot of what they write about is highly relevant to long-term Single folks of all descriptions.

I particularly like their stuff about reclaiming friendship from the notion that any close relationship between non-related adults must have a sexual dimension. As someone who lives in an "adelphopoetic" relationship with a fellow Serious Single, I find it unfortunate that a choice to have as one's life's companion a close friend rather than a lover, unusual but hardly unheard of through history, tends to be viewed with suspicion in these hyper-sexualized days. (Many of our relatives are convinced we are a closet couple. Thankfully, most non-relatives just take us for sisters.)

Anon for today said...

I wanted to comment yesterday but didn't - this post comes at just the right moment for me - especially, "dear me, how I cried." It's a lovely perspective to have when one is in the midst of dealing with all sorts of confusing feelings over something that isn't sexual, but has all the passion that something sexual would normally have, only it's love or friendship or something other. Anyway, the point is, it was lovely to read that you had experienced something like that and can look back on it now with a bit of distance. I'm looking forward to that kind of distance!

Seraphic said...

Time, as they say, heals all wounds. (Sigh.)

Maddi said...

Dear Auntie,

This is a late comment that you may not publish (or may not have published even had I been timely) but I wanted to bring a slightly different view to your blog.

I have been a long-time reader, although as a married woman something of a "lurker" with minimal input in the comment box.

There was a line on this post that really resonated with me:

"like all orthodox Christians, I am not so cool on "pleasure" being the primary reason for anything including sexual behaviour"

I read that and thought "that is the exact reason I am a vegan... that our own pleasure is not a good enough justification to hurt others..." so I was very shocked to read later in the same piece " up innocent pleasures, like ... meat ... is considered an important spiritual discipline."

Auntie please google "UK Slaughterhouse 2009" or "Earthlings" and you will see that meat is not an "innocent pleasure" there is horrific suffering involved in the process of eating animals.

I do not believe God created animals who feel fear & pain & intended us to hurt & abuse & kill them, when God gave us an abundance of plants that do not not have sentience and we can eat them and be healthy and without causing harm.

Auntie Seraphic, if you do not want this comment on your blog (which I suspect will be the case, although I'm very prepared to field any questions that come my way) please email me at

Yours with love,

Maddi x