Alternative lifestyles in the news
Were you surprised by the headline I used for this post? Coming from a lesbian, does the phrase “alternative lifestyle” seem odd? I hope so. In 2006, the Associated Press revised their standards for covering gay and lesbian topics, instructing reporters to ”Include sexual orientation only when it is pertinent to a story, and avoid references to “sexual preference” or to a gay or alternative “lifestyle.”"
The reason is that the term “alternative” automatically prejudices the listener or reader to view the individual(s) being described as rebelling against some kind of implicitly approved social norm. While it is true that GLBT people are a minority, we don’t talk about Muslims or Buddhists practicing “alternative lifestyles.” Further, the term “lifestyle” implies a level of superficiality or choice in being gay.
I mention this because I still hear the phrase occasionally, as I did this morning on 101.1 FM, a local radio station. It’s usually in a positive context, as in this instance, when the DJ was applauding Disney’s decision to allow gay and lesbian couples the full range of choices for their wedding sites that are given to straight couples. Still, it’s a jarring phrase to hear, because it has pejorative overtones. (I emailed the radio station about my thoughts and the AP standards.)
That phrase isn’t found in the ABC Associated Press coverage of this story, about a lesbian couple in Wyoming denied communion by a US bishop. Something else that isn’t found is any theological exploration of how the couple reconciles their relationship with the Catholic Church. Below the fold, more about the article and story.
The conflict in the piece is about the Catholic Church’s decision to bar Leah Vader and Lynne Huskinson from communion. That conflict began when a local paper did an interview with the couple over a Wyoming bill to ban same-sex marriage (Vader and Huskinson were married in Canada). Shown with ash on their foreheads, the couple were then contacted by their parish, telling them they couldn’t take communion.
So what? The article cites Professor Carl Raschke, chairman of religious studies at the University of Denver, who said, “It’s no more surprising that the Catholic Church would deny Communion to an openly gay couple than a Muslim mosque would deny access to somebody who ate pork.”
Then why the article? The problem is, according to ABC, “Vader said the couple never made any secret of their relationship…She also said that the couple posed for a church directory family photo with Vader’s children from a previous marriage, and that the church has sent mail to both of them at the same address for years.”
At this point, I was expecting an exploration of what the Catholic Church’s policy is for handling sinful rebellion or variance from church laws. What we got instead was a quote from the music director, saying he’d ask them to keep it to themselves, had he known (but he doesn’t have any authority over the communion table) and this from the parish priest: “The parish priest said that after the couple put their engagement and marriage announcements in the local paper, he ran reminders of the church’s teachings in the parish bulletin as a warning.”
The writer doesn’t say whether this is a typical Catholic response to sin within the community. Why didn’t he go to them first? Why were they being allowed to take communion already?
In terms of broader theological decisions, the article cites the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which “overwhelmingly approved new guidelines that say parishes should welcome gays while telling them to be celibate because the church considers their sexuality ‘disordered.’ The bishops said that anyone who knowingly persists in sinful behavior, such as gay sex or using artificial contraception, should refrain from taking Communion.”
We don’t know if the parish priest told Vader and Hutchinson to be celibate. If he did not, was he neglecting his duty as a shepherd of the people? We’re told “church allows local bishops to handle decisions on who may take Communion” but nothing about what is expected of the parish priest.
Ultimately, the implicit hypocrisy of the parish is what is being reported on. The closing lines of the article read “Huskinson questioned why Catholics having premarital sex and using birth control are not barred from receiving Communion, too. But the parish priest said the difference is this: The other Catholics are ‘not going around broadcasting, `Hey I’m having sex outside of marriage’ or `I’m using birth control.””
To the outsider, this seems like the church is primarily concerned with image. But is that the case? Or are there theological reasons why one, more “private” sin is not handled the same way as a more “public” sin? And too, why are Vader and Huskinson wanting to be part of a church that believe same-sex unions are sinful? How do they understand their union in light of their identity as a Catholic?
These questions were left unanswered, and I finished the article with more, not less, confusion about the Catholic Church and the many gays and lesbians within her parishes.