Drag Queen Story Hour: ideological colonisation of the family?

 Pope Francis is well known for advocating in favour of an approach of welcome and closeness to people who identify as LGBT+. He has done this on a number of occasions and in different contexts - in-flight interviews, response to LGBT+ persons when he meets them, correspondence with Fr James Martin. It is not possible to accuse him of advocating a hateful attitude towards an LGBT+ community.

However, in his most recent in-flight interview he distinguished this approach of welcome towards persons from "groups" and "lobby". And he has also spoken over the years of an "ideological colonisation of the family".

Story time certainly isn't over for Aida H Dee , the Drag Queen and founder of Drag Queen Story Hour UK says "hateful" protesters need to "get a job" instead of turning up at their events.

The Drag Story Hour UK consists of Drag Artists reading books to children across the country, in nurseries, libraries and museums. Aida’s aim is to ensure that children are given the opportunity to listen to stories that are diverse and inclusive of all people. They want children to have positive LGBTQ role models, something Aida says they didn’t have growing up.

Aida H Dee, the drag persona of Sab Samuel who founded Drag Queen Story Hour UK, says that most protesters don’t know what they’re protesting over. "They think they’re protesting against gender ideology and the concept of LGBTQ being out on children in some way," Sab said. "Kids have always been gay and trans and queen and non-binary, kids were always a part of the LGBTQ community, even before they knew it themselves."

The above is taken verbatim from an ITV News website report: "They should get a job" : Story time drag queen hits back at protestors". The accuracy of their reporting of the quotations attributed to Sab Samuel/Aida H Dee can be verified from the video clip included in the report.

The last sentence quoted above does express an ideology, what I think Pope Francis would recognise as an "ideological colonisation of the family". It is reasonable to expect that not all families will want their children to take part in an event such as this, which clearly has an intent with regard to LGBT+ ideology. 

As Sab Samuel/Aida H Dee suggests in the video clip, the idea of drag artists telling stories to children has been around for a long time - Christmas pantomime is in some ways its typical manifestation. But it does now seem to have gained an ideological intention that would have been absent from those earlier expressions, when a drag act would not have been identified as an expression of an LGBT+ identity.

Precision

An Italian text of the press conference during the flight back to Rome after Pope Francis' visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan can be found on the website of the Holy See: Press Conference of the Holy Father during the Return Flight. Archbishop Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Rt Rev Dr Greenshields, Moderator of the Church of Scotland (until later this year, when his successor will take over the office), also took part in the press conference.

It is Pope Francis' response to the fourth question in the press conference that has attracted most media attention. The English translation is my own:

Santo Padre, prima di partire per il suo viaggio apostolico Lei ha denunciato la criminalizzazione dell’omosessualità. E’ un delitto. In Sud Sudan e in Congo non è accettata dalle famiglie. Io stesso ho incontrato questa settimana a Kinshasa cinque omosessuali, ognuno dei quali era stato rifiutato e persino cacciato dalla propria famiglia. Questi omosessuali mi hanno spiegato che il loro rifiuto viene dall’educazione religiosa dei loro genitori. Alcuni di loro vengono addirittura portati da sacerdoti esorcisti perché le loro famiglie credono che siano posseduti da spiriti impuri. La mia domanda Santo Padre: cosa dice alle famiglie del Congo-Kinshasa e del Sud Sudan che ancora rifiutano i loro figli e che cosa dice ai preti, ai vescovi? Grazie.

[Holy Father, before setting of for your apostolic journey you denounced the criminalisation of homosexuality. It is a crime. In South Sudan and in Congo it is not accepted by families. I have met five homosexuals this week in Kinshasa, each of whom was rejected and even thrown out from their own families. These homosexuals explained to me that their rejection comes from the religious education of their parents. Some of them were even taken to priest exorcists because their family believed that they were possessed by impure spirits. Holy Father, my question: what do you say to the families of Congo-Kinshasa and of South Sudan who still reject their children, and what do you say to the priests, to the bishops? Thank you.]

Pope Francis' response is worth careful attention. Again, the English translation is my own.

Su questo problema ho parlato in occasione di due viaggi: prima, di ritorno dal Brasile: se una persona di tendenza omossessuale è credente e cerca Dio, chi sono io per giudicarlo? Questo ho detto in quel viaggio. Secondo, tornando dall’Irlanda – un viaggio un po’ problematico perché quel giorno era uscita la lettera di quel ragazzo –, lì ho detto chiaramente ai genitori: hanno diritto di rimanere in casa i figli che hanno questo orientamento, voi non potete cacciarli via di casa, hanno diritto su questo. E poi ultimamente ho detto qualcosa, non ricordo bene cosa ho detto, nell’intervista della Associated Press. La criminalizzazione dell’omosessualità è un problema da non lasciar passare. Il calcolo è, più o meno, che cinquanta Paesi in un modo o nell’altro portano a questa criminalizzazione. Alcuni dicono di più, diciamo almeno cinquanta. E alcuni di questi - credo saranno dieci - hanno anche la pena di morte, aperta o nascosta, ma la pena di morte. Questo non è giusto, le persone di tendenza omosessuale sono figli di Dio, Dio vuole loro bene, Dio li accompagna. È vero che alcuni sono in questo stato per diverse situazioni non volute, ma condannare una persona così è peccato, criminalizzare le persone di tendenza omosessuale è una ingiustizia. Non sto parlando dei gruppi, no, delle persone. Si può dire: “Ma fanno dei gruppi che fanno chiasso…”. Le persone. Le lobby sono un’altra cosa. Sto parlando delle persone. E credo che nel Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica c’è la frase che “non vanno marginalizzati”. Credo che la cosa è chiara su questo.

[I have spoken about this problem on the occasions of two journeys: first, on returning from Brasil: if a person of homosexual tendency is a believer and seeks God, who ami I to judge them? This is what I said in that journey. Second, returning from Ireland - a journey a little problematical because that day  the letter of this young man was released -, there I clearly said to the parents: children who have this orientation have a right to remain at home, you cannot throw them out of their home, they have a right about this. And then the last time I said something, I do not recall well what I said, in the interview with Associated Press.  The criminalisation of homosexuality is a problem that we cannot ignore. The estimate is, more or less, that fifty countries in one way or another move towards this criminalisation. Some say more, we say at least fifty. And some of these - I believe they might be ten - have also the death penalty, open or hidden, but the death penalty. This is not just, persons with homosexual tendency are children of God, God wishes their good, God accompanies them. It is true that some are in this condition through different situations they did not wish, but to condemn a person like this is a sin, to criminalise the person with homosexual tendency is an injustice. I am not speaking of groups, no, of persons. One can say: "But I speak of groups that make a controversy ...". Persons. The lobby are another thing. I am speaking of persons. And I believe that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the phrase "do not send them to the margins". I believe that the matter is clear on this question.]

There is a certain precision in Pope Francis' language in answering this question; and it is important to recognise the context set by the question he was asked. It was not a context that called for a reiteration of Catholic teaching on same sex relations, but one that asked about how to treat persons. Note, too, the distinction of Pope Francis' remarks addressed to how we should treat persons, as not being remarks addressed towards pressure groups on the subject. And note the careful expression "persons with homosexual tendency".

When I place Pope Francis' words into the situations where I might encounter a person who identifies as LGBT+ - at work, for example, or within the extended family - I do end up thinking that he is advocating the normal pastoral common sense that applies in these situations.

See also my recent post Sin and Crime.

Pope Francis' Message for the World Day of the Sick 2023

Saturday 11th February 2023, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, will see the celebration of the 31st World Day of the Sick. Pope Francis' message for the day was published on 10th January, with the title: "Take care of him" - Compassion as a synodal exercise of healing. Pope Francis refers to the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the reflection on that parable in his Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (nn.56 ff) to discuss the phenomenon of abandonment that may accompany illness. I have added the emphasis in the quotation below:

Brothers and sisters, we are rarely prepared for illness. Oftentimes, we fail even to admit that we are getting older. Our vulnerability frightens us and the pervasive culture of efficiency pushes us to sweep it under the carpet, leaving no room for our human frailty. In this way, when evil bursts onto the scene and wounds us, we are left stunned. Moreover, others might abandon us at such times. Or, in our own moments of weakness, we may feel that we should abandon others in order to avoid becoming a burden. This is how loneliness sets in, and we can become poisoned by a bitter sense of injustice, as if God himself had abandoned us. Indeed, we may find it hard to remain at peace with the Lord when our relationship with others and with ourselves is damaged. It is crucial, then, even in the midst of illness, that the whole Church measure herself against the Gospel example of the Good Samaritan, in order that she may become a true “field hospital”, for her mission is manifested in acts of care, particularly in the historical circumstances of our time. We are all fragile and vulnerable, and need that compassion which knows how to pause, approach, heal, and raise up. Thus, the plight of the sick is a call that cuts through indifference and slows the pace of those who go on their way as if they had no sisters and brothers.

The suggestion that the person who is sick is able to allow others to express their own dignity as persons by caring for their brothers and sisters who are more vulnerable is an important one. Certainly the person who cares recognises and promotes the dignity of the person who is sick and, in the terms of the parable, does not abandon them at the roadside. But Pope Francis is suggesting that there is a certain reciprocal action here on the part of the person who is sick, encouraging them not to abandon in their turn the dignity of the person who cares for them, and for whom they should never feel they are a burden.

In the particular circumstances of today, Pope Francis calls us to the corporal work of mercy that is the visiting of the sick.

Worldliness in the thought of Pope Francis

 I have just read the text of Pope Francis' address to the Bishops of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, during his current visit to the African continent. It reminds me that the Church in that country lives amidst an ongoing context of violence, a context that must give a very different sense to Catholic life than that which is experienced in a country such as our own. The full text can be found here: Meeting with Bishops.

It was this passage, however, that caught my attention, as it reflects a theme characteristic of Pope Francis:

Above all else, may we never open the door to the spirit of worldliness, for this makes us interpret ministry according to the criteria of our own advantage. It makes us become cold and detached in administering what is entrusted to us. It leads us to use our role to serve ourselves instead of serving others, and to neglect the one relationship that matters, that of humble and daily prayer. Let us remember that worldliness is the worst thing that can happen to the Church, the worst. I have always been moved by the end of Cardinal De Lubac’s book on the Church, the last three or four pages, where he puts it like this: spiritual worldliness is the worst thing that can happen, even worse than the time of Popes who were worldly and had concubines. It is the worst thing. And worldliness is always lurking. So let us be careful!

The reference to Cardinal de Lubac is to the last two or three pages of his book The Splendor of the Church; and de Lubac in his turn cites a passage from Dom Anscar  Vonier's The Spirit and the Bride. Pope Francis' most complete treatment of the theme is in Evangelii Gaudium nn.93-97, which includes a citation from the passage of de Lubac.

The passage from Anscar Vonier, from a book first published in the 1930's, reads as follows:

To become worldly is a peril that is never absent; when we say that worldliness is her snare we mean by worldliness a more subtle thing than is usually meant by this expression. We generally understand by worldliness the love of wealth and luxury amongst the Church's dignitaries; this is, of course, an evil, but it is not the principal evil. Worldliness of mind, if it were ever to overtake her, would be much more disastrous for the Church than worldliness of apparel. By worldliness of mind we understand the practical relinquishing of other-worldliness, so that moral and even spiritual standards should be based, not on what is the glory of the Lord, but on what is the profit of man: an entirely anthropocentric outlook would be exactly what we mean by worldliness. Even if men were filled with every spiritual perfection, but if such perfections were not referred to God (suppose this hypothesis to be possible), it would be unredeemed worldliness.

It may be worth appreciating that Dom Vonier goes on to suggest that it is the Holy Spirit who saves the Church from this evil by means of the seven gifts of the Spirit, and theme of the Holy Spirit in the Church is the context of his observations on worldliness.

As with his remarks about ideology (see Luigi Giussani's The Religious Sense), it is useful to recognise that Pope Francis' words on a type of spiritual worldliness are well founded, and should not be seen as directed against just one particular group in the Church of today. Anscar Vonier's The Spirit and the Bride is a natural read for someone familiar with the Charismatic Renewal; and The Religious Sense is foundational work for those familiar with Communion and Liberation. Pope Francis' familiarity with both these movements in the Church is useful in helping us to understand what he has to say about these two themes.

Sin and Crime

 This is the way in which Associated Press reported Pope Francis' remarks about homosexuality in his recent interview:

Pope Francis has stepped up his criticism of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community. He called laws criminalising homosexuals unjust but reiterated Catholic Church teaching that homosexual activity is sinful.

Bantering with himself, Francis articulated the position: "It's not a crime. Yes, but it's a sin. Fine, but first let's distinguish between a sin and a crime".

A fuller discussion of his remarks in the interview were reported here by Associated Press: The AP Interview: Pope says homosexuality not a crime. 

Pope Francis has since replied, in the form of a letter, to three questions that were asked of him by Fr James Martin SJ. The exchange is reported on Fr Martin's website: Pope Francis clarifies comments on homosexuality: "One must consider the circumstances".

And I wanted to clarify that it is not a crime, in order to stress that criminalization is neither good nor just.

When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. Of course, one must also consider the circumstances, which may decrease or eliminate fault. As you can see, I was repeating something in general. I should have said “It is a sin, as is any sexual act outside of marriage.” This is to speak of “the matter” of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter, but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin.

And I would tell whoever wants to criminalize homosexuality that they are wrong.

In a televised interview, where we spoke with natural and conversational language, it is understandable that there would not be such precise definitions.

I think that it has been very easy to misunderstand Pope Francis' previous exchanges of correspondence with Fr Martin, and in one respect this latest letter removes some of the cause for that misunderstanding. Pope Francis' letters have offered support for a ministry of closeness, without any suggestion that this should represent a change in Catholic teaching. America reports one such letter in August 2021. It is worth reading what it says carefully:

I want to thank you for your pastoral zeal and your ability to be close to people, with that closeness that Jesus had and that reflects the closeness of God. Our Heavenly Father approaches with love every one of his children, each and everyone. His heart is to open to each and everyone. He is Father. God's "style" has three aspects: closeness, compassion and tenderness. This is how he draws closer to each one of us.

Thinking about your pastoral work, I see that you are continuously looking to imitate this style of God...

When Rocco Buttiglione was proposed as a candidate to be a commissioner in the European Union in 2004, the question of the sinfulness of homosexual acts in relation to political action arose in a slightly different way. Rocco Buttiglione explained his stance during the hearing in advance of the appointment being made as follows (see my post here):

They introduced the category of sin into the political discourse, and I said "No, in politics we may not speak of sin. We should speak of non-discrimination, and I am solidly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals, or any type of discrimination." I did not say that homosexuality is a sin, as many newspapers reported. I said, "I may think." It is possible that I think this, but I did not tell them whether I think it or not. What I think about this has no impact whatsoever on politics, because in politics the problem is the principle concerning discrimination and I accept that principle.  

That was not enough. They wanted me to say that I see nothing objectionable about homosexuality. This I cannot do because it is not what I think. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is written that, from a moral point of view, homosexuality is not a sin but rather an objectively disordered condition. Homosexuality can become a sin if one adds the subjective element, which is to say, full knowledge that this is wrong and also freedom of the will which accepts this wrong position. I was not allowed to say that and for this reason I was deemed not worthy to be a European commissioner.  

In different contexts, Pope Francis and Rocco Buttiglione are sending the same message.

Review: To Kill a Mockingbird

 Aaron Sorkin's stage adaptation of Harper Lee's novel To Kill a Mockingbird has been running at the Gielgud Theatre on Shaftesbury Avenue since March 2022, and is currently booking until 20th May 2023. The production is quite exceptional in terms of the script, acting, set and lighting designs. If you have the chance to see it, the play is very highly recommended. It justified completely drawing applause at the interval curtain (I haven't seen that happen before) and a standing ovation at the final curtain.

In most respects, the play is very faithful to the original novel. It very cleverly interleaves the earlier episodes of the novel with the development of the trial of Tom Robinson; and, by using the device of Scout, Jem and Dill acting as narrators alongside the acted scenes, it successfully captures the way in which the novel portrays its events through the eyes of the children. My appreciation of the play was very much enhanced by familiarity with the novel from a recent reading - that familiarity enables a much readier recognition of the significance of scenes in the play. I suspect that someone seeing the play without having previously read the novel will have a very different experience than someone who is already familiar with the story.

There is, however, one area in which the playwright has deliberately chosen to differ from the novel and to thereby place his work within the context of the early 2020's rather than a context of the early 1960's when the novel was written or the 1930's when it is set. According to the progamme, Aaron Sorkin noted that the novel included two significant African- American characters, but that neither of them have very much to say. He also notes that a story of racial tension is told through the eyes of a young white girl, Scout. He therefore wishes to enhance the voice of the black characters and to reimagine the dynamics of the relationship between the black and white characters.

Instead of there being actors to represent the all white jury at Tom Robinson's trial, the seats of the jury box are unoccupied, though the lawyers, Atticus Finch in particular, are shown addressing themselves to the jury. This effectively, though subtly, expresses the absence of an effective black voice in the trial. That the racist rants of Bob Ewell have been drawn from commenters publishing on the Breitbart website - something that is not apparent when you listen to it in the play but is referred to in the programme - indicates a certain relocating of the play to a contemporary time.

There are two sub-plots shown in dialogue between Calpurnia and Atticus that articulate the reimagining intended by the playwright. Calpurnia calls out Atticus when he has presumed that she should say thank you to him for an act which was only the naturally right thing to do. It is the idea that a black person should have a particular demand of gratitude placed on them because of their colour that is here being challenged. (Aaron Sorkin has seen this in a scene in the novel where the coloured community are shown thanking Atticus for his defence of Tom Robinson). She also observes, in the context of Atticus' insistence that even those guilty of racism are people deserving of respect, that he might think about how that respecting of them is at the same time a disrespecting of those who are the targets of their racism. Aaron Sorkin sees this aspect of Atticus' character as excusing the racism that ought not to be excused, and expresses it in this dialogue between Calpurnia and Atticus. For the playwright, this is the flaw in Atticus' character that Harper Lee had already given him in writing the novel; but it could equally be argued that it represents an imposition on Harper Lee's novel from a later, perhaps to some extent ideological, point of view.

I think that Atticus Finch, if he were a real person, could justifiably complain about this re-writing of his character, with its adverse effect on his good name. For most of the play's audience, though, I suspect that the fidelity in other respects to the novel leaves Atticus' good name intact. I came away from the play, though,  feeling that it had not completely captured the character of Atticus that I recall from reading the novel.

All of this is subtle detail to be discovered from reading the programme. The play, seen in itself, remains an outstanding piece of theatre in every way. If you have the chance to see it, I would make sure you take it.

March for Life

It is interesting to note that the BBC have given coverage to this year's March for Life in Washington DC, both on the website and on the radio. Coverage I heard on Radio 4's Today programme earlier this week was less edged than this on the BBC website: Thousands gather for first post-Roe March for Life. Though a very significant demonstration, it has not in previous years gained much coverage in this country. The Today report was in some ways more interesting, referring to how pro-life activists recognise a change of focus to legislative activity in individual states; and to how abortion providers are trying to reach women on states where abortion has been restricted since the overthrow of Roe v. Wade (eg by posting abortion pills to locations near state boundaries for women to collect).

Pope Francis words, in a wide ranging address to diplomats accredited to the Holy See in early January, showed a good understanding of the implication of the overturning of the Roe v Wade judgement in America, in its reference to an "alleged right to abortion":

Peace requires before all else the defense of life, a good that today is jeopardized not only by conflicts, hunger and disease, but all too often even in the mother’s womb, through the promotion of an alleged “right to abortion”. No one, however, can claim rights over the life of another human being, especially one who is powerless and thus completely defenceless. For this reason, I appeal to the consciences of men and women of good will, particularly those having political responsibilities, to strive to safeguard the rights of those who are weakest and to combat the throwaway culture that also, tragically, affects the sick, the disabled and the elderly. States have a primary responsibility to ensure that citizens are assisted in every phase of human life, until natural death, and to do so in a way that makes each feel accompanied and cared for, even in the most delicate moments of his or her life.