Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence: Perpetually Juvenile
By Cinnamon Stillwell
While the famously liberal city of San Francisco is known for its anti-military shenanigans, it's the anti-Christian and, in particular, anti-Catholic sentiment emanating from activist elements of the city's gay population that's been getting all the attention as of late.... The latest instance of such sentiment originated with an all too familiar source: San Francisco's notorious Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The "sisters" are a group of gay men who dress up as nuns — of the drag-queen variety — in an attempt to parody Catholicism and, in a larger sense, Christianity, for what they perceive as its intolerance towards homosexuality. Their motto is "go forth and sin some more" and members have adopted satirical names such as "Sister Chastity Boner" and "Sister Constance Craving of the Holey Desire." ...I walked past one of the sisters standing outside a bar on Polk Street last weekend, joking loudly, with beer in hand, about going to "receive communion" later that day.
Receiving Holy Communion is exactly what two members of the group set out to achieve earlier this month. The sisters attended Mass at San Francisco's Most Holy Redeemer Parish on Oct. 7 and, in effect, forced Archbishop George H. Niederauer to deliver the Eucharist to them as his rather stunned congregation looked on.
Holy Communion, as described in a Chronicle article on the subject, is "a sacrament, and Catholics believe the consecrated bread and wine are the 'Body of Christ' and the 'Blood of Christ.' It is to be taken reverentially, as it is considered the source of Christian life." But the attitude of the sisters was hardly one of reverence for the church or its traditions. In fact, their publicity stunt was conveniently filmed and later disseminated to the media, although the sisters claim this was not their intention.
On the spot
Obviously, the point was to put the archbishop in an uncomfortable position whereby he could either refuse to comply, thereby handing the public a gold mine of alleged Catholic "intolerance," or go along with the ruse. The archbishop chose the latter route, and, frankly, it's hard to imagine what else he could have done in the situation. According to Rev. Jim Bretzke, professor of moral theology at University of San Francisco, a Jesuit Catholic university, "the sisters ... (did) not meet the criteria the church has for denying Communion."
Nonetheless, many Catholics were upset about the incident, seeing it as a desecration of the church. As Bill May, chairman of San Francisco's Catholics for the Common Good, put it, "They were there to make a statement and embarrass the archbishop and, in doing so, they desecrated what is most sacred and dear to every Catholic in the world." A disingenuous letter sent afterwards to Archbishop Niederauer by one of the perpetrators, "Sister Delta Goodhand," thanking him for his "inclusiveness," did little to assuage the feelings of those on the receiving end of the group's mockery.
Responding to the outrage, Archbishop Niederauer later apologized for giving the sisters communion, calling their actions "deeply offensive." In a statement at the Catholic San Francisco Web site, Neiderauer noted that this had been his first visit to the Most Holy Redeemer Parish and that, not having previously encountered members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, he failed to recognize them as such. Given that the church is located in the heart of San Francisco's most well known gay neighborhood, the Castro District, and that it touts itself as an "inclusive Catholic community," Niederaurer might have been better prepared.
However, he was clearly caught by surprise and faced with a conundrum. He concluded that, "Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them."
Prudent response
While there has been little mention of the incident in the wider media, O'Reilly has been keeping up the pressure with his television show. In the process, he has expressed disappointment with the leadership of the Catholic Church, which has remained largely silent on the matter. However, the situation has put church leadership in something of a bind. Much like Archbishop Niederauer, it could not respond aggressively without appearing to overreact and, therefore, provide ammunition to its critics. The church may very well have taken the most prudent approach, even if it was one that left many Catholics unsatisfied.
Frustration about the blatant double standard when it comes to mocking Christianity is indeed growing, and not without reason. Anger over the sisters' publicity stunt comes on the heels of a widely publicized and tasteless advertisement for San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair, an annual event for purveyors of sadomasochism and exhibitionism. The ad featured a group of leather-clad men and women sitting around a table festooned with sex toys, in a manner obviously modeled after painter Leonardo Da Vinci's depiction of Christ and his disciples, "The Last Supper." The advertisement was clearly intended to mock Christianity and it succeeded in that goal. Similar expressions of ridicule were found at the Folsom Street Fair itself, where stands selling sex toys with Jesus and, in some cases, Buddha heads, were captured online. (zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/).
Such hostility towards Christianity is by no means shared by San Francisco's entire gay community. In fact, I had an enlightening conversation with a taxicab driver last week who described himself as gay and conservative and who shares some of the traditional views held by practicing Christians in regards to marriage and adoption.
Hatred of Christianity?
But where anti-Christian sentiment does arise in the local gay community, it tends to originate in the perception that Christianity, by adhering to its own orthodoxies, is promoting hatred. But, as I've noted previously, disapproval is not synonymous with hatred. The very nature of organized religion is to present human beings with a set of standards by which to live, and this includes taboos. Reform is a necessary part of this process and, indeed, various liberal Christian and Catholic parishes have sprung up around the country. But many gay activists are not content with this state of affairs. It seems that until the Catholic Church bends to their will and, essentially, dispenses with all its traditions, they will not be satisfied.
In the spirit of tolerance so often claimed by such activists, it might behoove them to allow the devout their own beliefs, even where they find them offensive. For it was never written in stone that Americans are to be free of offense, despite what the arbiters of political correctness would have us believe. One is not compelled to like or approve of the lifestyle or actions of another, as long as violence or incitement to violence is not employed in the process. And, again, registering disapproval is not tantamount to promoting violence.
In contrast, it's the antagonism expressed towards Christians by their critics that often veers dangerously close to hatred. In an earlier column, I noted a T-shirt worn by a salesclerk in a San Francisco gift shop that read, "So many right-wing Christians, so few lions." One can only imagine the reaction had another group been substituted for Christians. It seems that, for some, anti-Christian bigotry has become the last acceptable prejudice.
Anti-gay prejudice in Muslim world
While the urge to mock tradition and make light of the Judeo-Christian foundations of Western civilization is strong among San Francisco's gay activists, little is said about a religion in which homosexuals are not only disapproved of, but actively oppressed. In Islamic societies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, increasingly, the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, where Sharia law rules the day, gays are routinely arrested, tortured, subjected to lashings, stoned to death, hanged or beheaded.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Columbia University shed light on this sad state of affairs when he made the rather sinister claim that "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country." (The two Iranian gay teenagers who found themselves on the receiving end of a public hanging in 2005 might have begged to differ had they been allowed the freedom of speech accorded their inhumane leader by the denizens of academia). The audience at Columbia responded with laughter and, indeed, Ahmadinejad came off as something of a rube in the process. But there are serious issues involved that needn't be swept aside in order to avoid giving offense.
What's more likely is that fear of incurring violence is at the heart of the matter. Gay activists need not worry that an archbishop or a nun is going to kidnap and behead them, even if they desecrate the Catholic Church. But were such an "infidel" to do the same in a mosque, it's more than likely that his life would be threatened from that point on, as has been the case with various reformers, critics, and simple satirists.
If groups such as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence spent half as much time criticizing Islam for its abuses against gay rights as they do Catholicism, then perhaps their attempts at activism might be seen as truly groundbreaking. As it is, their juvenile behavior is redolent of a son desperately rebelling against his father, a teenage girl telling her mother she hates her because she can't stay out as late as she'd like, and other similarly adolescent expressions of fury.
When we start seeing sex toys with Muhammad's likeness on them being sold at the Folsom Street Fair or sisters infiltrating mosques in burqas, then perhaps we can call these activists and their supporters brave. Until then, perhaps it's time for the sisters to grow up.
Posts
