A Nice Little Chat

As the Memorial Day weekend wound down, a few of us were sitting around our community pool having a nice little chat.  Included were your humble correspondent, the lovely Mrs. Gammons, a neighborhood friend  of the Democratic/liberal persuasion, and two neighborhood friends -- a married couple -- who are proud conservative Catholic Republicans.  We've known each other for years, have socialized at each other's homes, and we all get along like peas and carrots . . . for the most part.

At one point, our friend asked the other couple, as parents of a Watterson High student, for their take on the Carla Hale situation.  (Carla Hale is a long-time Watterson teacher who was recently fired when she came out as a lesbian.  Her employment contract contains a "morals" clause in which being openly gay is cause for termination.)

Boy, did we get an answer!  Our conservative friends told us that since Hale signed the contract, the Diocese was within its legal rights to fire her.  If she didn't like it, she should have stayed in the closet or worked elsewhere.  It's a private school, we can do what we like.  And besides, the Bible says being gay/lesbian is a sin, we don't want our kids to know about such alternative "choices", the purpose of marriage is procreation so a gay marriage is not a true marriage, the thought of gay sex is gross and icky, and all those Hale supporters/protesters in front of the school are a royal pain in the ass.  But, hey, we don't have anything against gay people!

Our friend responded that the most of those protesters are Catholic, just like him.  He said that the majority of Catholics do not agree with Hale's firing, and both the school administration and the student body are supportive and didn't wish for her to be fired.  He also pointed out that the Bible says a whole bunch of things, many of which are inconsistent and contradictory.

I went with the more basic right-and-wrong, saying that Hale's firing was a type of prejudice that violated her civil rights and the Diocese's decision was therefore wrong.  I added that I couldn't see how a teacher's gayness harmed them or their children in any way, shape or form.

The temperature began to rise.  "This is my faith!" the husband snapped.  "Are you telling me I'm wrong?  The oldest, most respected religion in the world is wrong?"

Whoa there, cowboy!  Didn't say you were wrong.  You believe whatever you want -- your faith is your own.  And I didn't really say your church was wrong.  I said the bishop's decision to fire Carla Hale was wrong.  (And for the record, there are other religions older than Catholicism.  And the long-running epidemic of priest pedophilia has seriously dented respect for the Catholic church.)

Somehow, we calmed the waters and cooled things off and everybody went home friends, I think, I hope.  I'll certainly apologize for any hurt feelings next time I see them.

At its core, this difference of opinion has very little to do with Catholicism.  (I know a great many Catholics of all sorts.  Most of my best friends are Catholic.)  It has to do with the increasingly polarized liberal vs. conservative viewpoints, and I guess we didn't fully appreciate the depth of our friends' conservatism.  They seemed genuinely shocked that someone might look at things differently than they do.

The post-game analysis:  For some people, there seems to be a parallel between the unquestioning acceptance of "church law" and strict adherence to religious doctrine, and the similar acceptance of Tea-Bag politics and rigid social conservatism.  Both are endangered species.  They lack majority support, and both demographic trends and the tide of history are against them.  Their adherents thrash and flail about in unfocused anger and resentment.

Our friend compared these attitudes to those displayed in the dying days of apartheid in South Africa.

Apt comparison.