Beyond the Male-Female Binary

A few days ago I found myself in a medical walk-in clinic, perusing the latest issue of a women’s fashion magazine while I waited to see the doctor.  (Thankfully, doctors’ waiting rooms are no longer the repositories of stale news magazines and nothing else.) Although I consider myself fairly up-to-date when it comes to fashion trends, I was taken aback by what I saw on the pages of the magazine.  I saw men–at least I assumed they were male models–dressed in ruffled bodices and high heels.  There were ‘man-spreading’ girls–I believe they were women–sporting suits and ties and clunky boots.  I literally could not tell who was male or who was female by the clothes they were wearing or by their body shapes or facial features or hairstyles or their postures.  And that was the point.  This issue of the magazine had nothing to do with the latest styles in women’s clothing; this was all about gender identity.

There is a movement afoot to do away with the male-female binary.  Until recently, biological sex and gender were regarded as the same thing and the terms were used interchangeably.  Before the time of ultrasounds, new parents waited to hear those all-important words from the doctor or midwife. who would say one of two things after examining the newborn’s genitalia, “it’s a boy” or “you have a girl.”  The child would then be raised as either a boy or girl and eventually become an adult man or woman.

Social activists and certain ‘experts’ now claim that biological sex and gender are not the same: sex refers solely to biological characteristics, e.g., genitalia and hormone levels, while gender has to do with an individual’s internal, personal sense of being male or female.  A problem arises when an individual’s perception of themselves as male or female does not line up with their actual ”plumbing’:  a condition formerly classed as the psychological disorder,  gender dysphoria.  Today we use the adjective ‘transgender’ to describe such individuals–represented by the T in LGBTQ.  From 0.25% to 1% of the population in Canada and the US is believed to be transgender.

Once gender was separated from biological sex and came to be based on personal feelings, new categories appeared.  Some individuals identify now as neither male nor female but as non-binary (NB), meaning that they locate themselves outside the male-female dichotomy.  Others describe themselves as ‘gender fluid’ meaning that they sometimes identify as male, on other occasions as female–their gender can vary at random, or alter with changing circumstances.  Some label themselves neutrois, meaning neither male nor female, but neutral.  There’s even an new adjective to describe those whose biological sex and sense of personal gender align (like the vast majority of the human race):  we are ‘cisgender’.

The idea that there are more than two genders is being promoted by no less an organization than the Associated Press (AP).  In their 2017 stylebook–the writing and editing resource for newsrooms–the AP directs news writers to avoid using  the words “both,” “either,” or “opposite” when talking about gender, to reject any reference that would imply there are only two genders.  That news writers are following this latest edict was confirmed for me recently when I heard a news presenter refer to “all genders.”

Astonishingly, assigning a gender at birth based on biology is now viewed by some as a violation of a child’s human rights.  A Canadian woman who identifies as non-binary and transgender wants to keep her newborn’s gender off the child’s birth certificate.  ‘They’ want to avoid placing “restrictions on the child that come with the boy box and the girl box.”

Are there really more than two genders, as the social activists claim?  Science says “no.” A female has 46 chromosomes, which includes two Xs.  A male has 46 chromosomes, including an X and Y.  It is this Y chromosome which is dominant and carries the signal for the embryo to grow testes.  Maleness or femaleness is embedded in the very DNA of individuals and remains unaltered by surgery or hormone therapy.  An individual may decide he or she is non-binary, but his or her DNA would say otherwise.  Interestingly–but not at all surprising to me–science supports the biblical and traditional view of gender.

We have barely begun to see the consequences of making gender a matter of personal feeling!  An male inmate in a Canadian prison who now identifies as female has won the right to be transferred to a women’s prison,  thanks to recent legislation passed by the Canadian government.  He/she is being allowed to do this, despite not having begun sex-change surgery.

Back to the gender-bending fashion magazine in the doctor’s waiting room:  It was obvious to me that the editor was ‘on board’ with the move to do away with this whole male-female notion.  In retrospect: I can’t remember whether I even liked any of the clothes I saw in the magazine.  But then, it wasn’t about clothing anyway.  This was essentially a propaganda piece.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Prime Minister’s Support Hose

Has there ever been a prime minister or president or political leader anywhere, in any era, who used his socks to send out political messages?  I can’t think of anyone.  When Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau went to NATO headquarters, he wore NATO-themed hose. (Hose, a seldom-used word today meaning stockings or socks.)  When he attended the LGBT rainbow flag-raising ceremony on Parliament Hill in Ottawa recently, he wore rainbow-striped socks.  When the prime minister gave a speech at a Muslim welfare centre, he wore Muslim-themed socks.

For a political leader who likes to demonstrate his support by what he puts on his feet (weird, no?), the fact that the Toronto Gay Pride Parade and the Muslim festival of Eid Mubarak fell on the same day–as they did this year–must have posed something of a dilemma for Canada’s PM.  What socks could he wear that would affirm both groups?  He decided on a pair of striped socks inscribed with the words Eid Mubarak.  It didn’t really matter that the stripes in the Eid Mubarak socks were not the same six stripes of colour that make up the rainbow flag.

How a pair of socks celebrating an Islamic festival came to be in the PM’s sock drawer is interesting:  The Muslim owners of a Toronto-based company that sells Islam-themed socks had enlisted a Muslim member of the Liberal government to present the socks as a gift to the prime minister.  On June 25, Canada’s prime minister wore his gift of Eid Mubarak socks, first as he attended a ‘Faith and Pride’ outdoor church service, then as he marched at the head of the Toronto Gay Pride parade.

Given Islam’s view of homosexuality, I wonder how the Muslim sock-manufacturers reacted when they saw their Eid socks at a Gay Pride parade.  And what about the feelings of the Muslim-community at large.  The PM’s actions could only have been an affront to devout Muslims.  In the hadith (the sayings and actions of Muhammad), Islam’s prophet called for those who perform homosexual acts, not to be celebrated, but to be executed (Sunan Abu Dawud 4462).  In 40 out of 57 Muslim-majority countries and territories homosexuality is a criminal offense and gays can be fined, flogged, and jailed.  In ten Muslim-majority countries, homosexual activity can lead to execution.   And in two countries, it does.  Iran hangs gays in public; the Islamic State (or ISIS) hurls gay men to their deaths from roof tops.

Eid Mubarak socks at a Gay Pride parade?  What was the prime minister thinking?  The answer lies in what the PM said before the parade.  Sporting a rainbow-striped maple leaf painted on his cheek, he commented:  “It’s all about how we celebrate the multiple layers of identities that make Canada extraordinary and strong.” The prime minister’s socks were meant to show his support for two of those layers:  the LGBT and Muslim communities.  The PM’s socks were a sign of his commitment to inclusiveness: the highest ideal to which a just society should now aspire.

What is becoming clear, though, is that, even as Western political leaders tout the virtues of inclusiveness–some of them like Trudeau through their socks–some layers of society are being deliberately excluded.  The Toronto chapter of Black Lives Matter prevented the Toronto police float and uniformed police officers from marching in the Gay Pride parade.  South of the border, in Chicago, marchers carrying rainbow flags with an Israeli flag imposed on top were excluded from a parade of dykes because the Israeli flag was deemed to be ‘triggering’.

The idea of what an inclusive society looks like seems to be changing.  When you hear political leaders speak of an inclusive society, don’t assume they include you.  I won’t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Russian Bear’s New Best Friends

If you are someone who depends solely on the Main Stream Media (MSM) for your news, you likely are  unaware that a geo-political shift of seismic proportions has occurred in the Middle East.  Like me, probably all you have heard from the MSM is that, for the first time ever, Russia launched a bombing raid on the so-called Islamic State (IS) from a base inside Iran.  Nor is it likely that you learned Turkey wants to make Incirlik, the US military’s major base of operations in Turkey and site of the US’ largest stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons on foreign soil, available now to Russia as well.

In an unprecedented move, and something even the shah of Iran never allowed, the Islamic Republic of Iran has permitted a foreign power, Russia, to use one of its air bases–Shahid Nojeh air base 50 km north of Hamadan–from which to launch bombing raids against IS in Syria.  (Critics of Russia’s bombing campaign claim that Russia targets predominantly moderate Syrian opposition forces, allies of the US, not IS.)  What does Russia get out of this new arrangement?  A greatly reduced flying time to terrorist targets in Syria.  What does Iran get out of collaborating with Russia?   Given that Iran calls the US ‘the Great Satan’ and Israel ‘the Little Satan’, I can’t think of anything good to come out of it for Israel and her allies.  (Since Russia “bragged” about its use of the Iranian air base, Iran has announced an end to the arrangement after only three sorties by the Russian bombers.  Be that as may, that Iran would allow it even once is jaw-dropping.)

Then there’s Erdogan’s Turkey,  a fellow NATO member, although, who could tell these days?  After the failed coup attempt in July, Erdogan ordered the blockade of Incirlik, the major base of operations for the  US military in Turkey, home to 5,000 US airmen and site of the US’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on foreign soil.   He has asked the US to hand over to Turkey the tactical nuclear weapons  (the US hasn’t).  Furthermore, he wants to make continued use of Incirlik air base by the Americans contingent on the US turning over Gulen, who Erdogan claims was behind the coup.  And, astoundingly, Erdogan wants the air base at Incirlik to be available now for use by Russia  as well.  An American presence on Turkish soil was established during the Cold War as a deterrent to the threat posed by the former USSR! Ironic, isn’t it.

The ‘cozy’ relationship developing between Russia, Iran, and Turkey should be a major news story, but to most, it isn’t.  Those who take Biblical prophecy seriously, however, are sitting up and taking notice.  In the Book of Ezekiel, the Hebrew prophet describes a coalition of nations, led by a leader named Gog, who attacks Israel in the latter days with disastrous consequences for the world (Ezek 38 and 39) in what has come to be known as ‘The War of Gog and Magog’.   Only one of the nations who make up this coalition is readily identifiable today:  Persia, or Iran as it is now known (38:5). Consequently, this has led to a lot of speculation as to the makeup of the rest of this latter day coalition.  Some claim that “Gog, prince of Meshech and Tubal” (38:3) refers to Russia and its leader, and “Togarmah” (38:6) is Turkey, hence the interest in the new Iran-Russia-Turkey axis.

How did Russia come to be the dominant power in the Middle East, seemingly overnight?  I asked someone this question and he replied:  “The Russian bear moved into the Middle East, and Obama moved into the bathrooms of America.”  I think that sums it up pretty well.  In pursuit of so-called “transgender rights,” the Obama administration, through its policies and decrees, is forcing radical social change on America.  Under Obama, who claims to be acting on behalf of the 0.6% of the American population who identify as transgender, the concept of male-female is being made irrelevant.   Just last week, Pres. Obama decreed that every bathroom, shower, and locker room in every courthouse, every school,  indeed,  every federal building in the US, is now open to people of either gender.  One’s sexual identity–now considered a matter of personal choice–determines what bathroom or locker room one can use, and not the set of ‘plumbing’ one was born with.  Social change:  this is Pres. Obama’s priority at this moment in time.  I predict that future generations will regard this period in history with utter disbelief, trying to,  and failing, to make sense of the Obama administration’s  obsession with bathrooms at a time like this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glamourizing Oppression

There was a Marks & Spencer (M&S) Store for a time in a city where I once lived.  I liked to wander the aisles of this British commercial icon; it was like taking a mini-trip ‘across the pond’.  There were tantalizing jams and marmalades, biscuits, candies, etc.:   products that one would normally encounter only in the UK.  Mostly I looked and salivated, though.  I think I purchased products from the frozen food case a couple of times.  Unlike the food offerings, the store’s limited selection of women’s clothing held little appeal for me, as it would have for most North American women, I believe.  I found their clothing rather matronly, even dowdy.  There must have been too many consumers like me, for the store closed its doors for good after what seemed to me like the briefest of forays into the local market.

M&S’s latest business venture is making news headlines these days.  For the first time, M&S will offer burkinis for sale in the UK, beginning with their flagship store at Marble Arch in London.  A burkini,  for those who don’t know, is a women’s bathing ‘costume’ which meets the Quranic requirements for Muslim women.  Resembling the wet suit worn by divers, the burkini covers the whole body except for the face, hands, and feet.  Up until now, M&S sold burkinis only at its stores in Dubai and Libya.  M&S will be selling two versions in its London store:  a blue item with a floral print across the front, and a black number with a paisley pattern.  “It’s  lightweight so you can swim in comfort,” promises the ad.

I wonder about that “swim in comfort” claim.  I have seen a woman wearing a burkini.  It was at a public pool during adult swim time.  As I watched her doing lengths, seemingly oblivious to the swimmers around her–young men with their bare chests and sleeve tattoos, female swimmers  wearing the latest swimwear–I couldn’t help thinking:  What must it feel like to do lengths in a soggy body-length suit?  Maybe it was tolerable while in the water, but one certainly wouldn’t want to sit around in it after coming out of the water.

Like M&S, a number of the world’s foremost fashion houses have recognized that there is money, big money, to be made in Islamic fashion for women.  A 2013 report revealed that Muslims spend $266bn on clothing and footwear–more than Japan and Italy combined.  The biggest buyers of haute couture fashion are not Westerners, but Arab women.  Determined to capture a corner of the lucrative Islamic fashion market, the Italian fashion house Dolce & Gabbana has launched, for the first time ever, a line of fourteen abayas ‘loose-fitting, full-length cloaks worn over clothes to conceal the woman’s shape’ with matching hijabs ‘head scarves’. Their new line of Islamic clothing, according to some, is so beautifully-made that even non-Muslim women would like to wear it.  Other fashion houses are getting into the act:  Chanel, H&M, Gucci, to name a few.

Thankfully, not everyone believes  that designing and selling clothing for Muslim women that meets Quranic standards is the right thing for Western businesses to do, and they are speaking out.  British journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, herself a Shia Muslim, protests, “These companies might not think they are encouraging fanaticism, but they are.  They’re complicit in a version of Islam that believes women must be subjugated in public.”

Pierre Berge, French businessman and co-founder of the fashion house Yves Saint Laurent, outraged by what fashion houses are doing, told a French radio station that “creators should have nothing to do with Islamic fashion…[that] designers who do are taking part in the enslavement of women…Designers are there to make women more beautiful, not to collaborate with this dictatorship which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life.”

Another voice of protest is that of France’s Minister of Women’s Rights Laurence Rossignol who argues that “What is at stake is social control over women’s bodies.  When brands invest in this Islamic garment market, they are shirking their responsibilities and are promoting women’s bodies being locked up.”

hijab

(Courtesy Pixabay)

Glamourizing abayas and hijabs by trimming them with black lace, beads, and flowers does not alter the garments’  purpose, namely, to conceal the feminine form from public scrutiny.

Is being made to wear abayas and hijabs a form of oppression?  And do those who design and sell the garments contribute to that oppression?   I still vividly recall a scenario I witnessed while sitting on a park bench in Vienna.  Having spent several hours inside the cool of Vienna’s war museum and not realizing how hot the weather outside had turned during that time, I started out for the bus stop, managing only to make it as far as the first park bench before being forced to take a ‘breather’.  As I sat there, a young female jogged by at a brisk pace, arms and legs bare, pony tail flying!  Behind her, along the path plodded three young Muslim women–comparable in age, I would guess–wearing hijabs and abayas, only their hands and faces exposed.  Looking uncomfortably warm, they plunked themselves down on the park bench down from me.  Their actions and that of the jogger spoke volumes to me that day.

Violence against Women: A Terror Tactic

First thing in the morning now, after making a Keurig coffee, I turn on the TV with one thought in mind:  “Where have the jihadis struck this time?”  This morning it was Ouagadougou in Burkino Faso, West Africa.  Four terrorists (the number keeps changing), two of them women, slaughtered 23 innocent people in a 4-star hotel and nearby Cappuccino restaurant.  Ouagadougou, Jakarta, Istanbul, Philadelphia, Paris, San Bernardino–on and on the list of terrorist atrocities goes, and grows.  I have some sense of what it must have been like during World War II, with our parents and grandparents anxiously turning on their radios each morning to learn how the war was going.  But there all similarity ends.  The people of that day, along with their leaders, recognized what was at stake:  freedom as they knew it.  To those who didn’t understand the gravity of their situation, there was Winston Churchill to articulate it for them.  We are facing an equally formidable foe in the global jihadist movement but we, unfortunately, have no ‘Churchill’.

The terror tactics of the enemy are not dependent solely on AK 47s and bombs, however, as women throughout Europe’s cities discovered to their grief on New Year’s Eve.  Over 500 women in Cologne alone were victims that night of something called taharrush gamea, an Arabic phrase which means roughly ‘collective harassment’.  The tactic goes like this:  a large group of men forms a circle around a lone female.  Some of the men then move into the middle of the ring to grope or rape, sometimes rob, the lone female.  Those not directly involved in the assault watch from the perimeter, or help divert outsiders’ attention to what is taking place inside the circle.  The tactic is almost always carried out in a naturally-chaotic setting, like a large public gathering where no one in the crush of people notices what’s going on beside them.  Because of the density of the crowds, the perpetrators are difficult to identify, and hence, to prosecute.  Though never seen before in Europe, this practice is not a new tactic:  CBS reporter Lara Logan, for instance, was a victim of taharrush in Cairo’s Tahrir Sqquare in 2011.

Not all, but a good number of those men who terrorized women on New Year’s Eve have been identified as recent migrants.  Rather than behaving like newly-arrived asylum-seekers, eager to ingratiate themselves with their generous hosts, the young men who assaulted and robbed women on New Year’s Eve were acting more like a conquering army.  (Do they perhaps see themselves as such?)  Speaking of conquering armies, the behaviour of the Soviet Red Army in Germany at the close of World War II comes to mind.  I’ve read accounts of how German women, of all ages, plain or beautiful, and  desperate not to attract the attention of the Russian soldiers  now patrolling their streets, would make themselves as undesirable as possible:  they stopped bathing and washing their hair; they smeared themselves with dirt; they wore the ugliest clothes they could find–all to avoid hearing the bone-chilling  words, “Komme, Frau ‘come here, woman’.”

The terror attack in Ouagadougou has left 23 innocent people dead and 56 wounded, many with grievous, life-altering, wounds.  I wouldn’t want to minimize the dreadful injuries those victims have undoubtedly sustained.  Their lives will never again be the same.  But we mustn’t think that the women and girls who were sexually molested  or raped or robbed on New Year’s Eve will be left unscarred, either.  Will they ever be as confident again out-and-about on their own?  That may have been one of the goals of the men that night:  to intimidate the women; to make them think twice about going into the public square, uncovered and unaccompanied by a male relative (just like back home).  Cologne looked an awful lot like a city in the Muslim Middle East that night, and the jihadis didn’t even have to fire a shot.  Incredibly, the mayor of Cologne, a woman, called on the local women to change their behaviour, to keep the men at arm’s length, in order to avoid a repetition. Now how about the young men?

 

Christmas and the Spirit of Inclusiveness

One of the things I love about this time of year is the music.  There is such a wealth of wonderful Christmas carols, some old, some contemporary:  how to pick a favourite?  The carol O Come, O Come, Emmanuel is one that never fails to move me.  Its haunting melody captures, I believe, the sense of longing felt by the Jewish people down through the centuries as they looked for their promised messiah.  Christians believe that promise was fulfilled with the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.  In the words of another carol, “The hopes and dreams of all the years are met in thee [Jesus] tonight,” ( O Little Town of Bethlehem).

I still vividly recall the words to a carol I sang as a child with my school choir at the Christmas choir festival held annually in one of the big churches in my home town:

Winds through the olive trees softly did blow

round little Bethlehem long, long ago.

Sheep on the hillsides lay white as the snow;

Christ came to Bethlehem, long, long ago.

In a sign of how much things have changed in the multicultural West:   At their annual ‘December’ concert this year, 285 schoolchildren from the French public schools in Canada’s capital Ottawa and the surrounding area sang a piece arranged especially for them:  Tala’ al-Badru ‘Alayna, which translates into English as ‘The Full Moon Rose over Us’, a number based on a traditional Arabic song purportedly sung to Islam’s Prophet Muhammad upon his arrival in Medina after leaving Mecca.  Robert Filion, the choir’s director, said that he had wanted to do a Muslim-inspired piece for some time, but that he had had difficulty finding anything.  (I can just imagine, given Islam’s ambivalence towards the performance of  music.)

Coming upon this ancient Islamic piece known as Tala’ al-Badru ‘Alayna,  Filion commissioned Laura Hawley to compose a new arrangement.  To make certain that what they were undertaking wouldn’t cause offense, Filion and Hawley consulted with the local imams, who obviously gave their project a ‘thumbs up’.  And so, in the name of inclusiveness, school children performed a Muslim-inspired song at their December concert.  The song has been very well-received–getting more than 600,000 views on YouTube–and is slated to be performed for a second time at an upcoming Christmas concert in one of Ottawa’s churches.  Many who heard the piece took it to be a song of welcome to the Syrian refugees arriving in Canada.

A Muslim-inspired song at a multicultural school concert is one thing, but at a church Christmas concert?  Recognizing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, even in song, presents a dilemma to those churchgoers who will be present at the concert.  The Jesus of the Qur’an is not the same as the Jesus of the Gospels.  Muslims revere Jesus, too, but only as a prophet, one prophet in a line of 28 prophets, a prophet who was superseded by their Prophet Muhammad.

The Jesus we Christians celebrate, on the other hand,  is called Emmanuel, a Hebrew word which translates as ‘God is with us’.  The writers of the Gospels tell us that Jesus was not merely a prophet, but God in human form.  In Jesus the Christ, God personally launched a rescue mission to save His fallen creation.  This is the Jesus we sing about at Christmas time.   God taking on human flesh:  That’s amazing.  Maybe that’s why there’s so much amazing Christmas music!

What Does Pope Francis Really Believe about Marriage?

Almost five hundred years have passed since Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg.  His action on All Saints’ Eve in 1517 set in motion a revolutionary chain reaction that would bring about the Reformation.  Luther’s 95 Theses were his response to the behaviour of a certain Dominican friar by the name of Johann Tetzel, a preacher/salesman who was shamelessly peddling indulgences–for a price–near Wittenberg.  (An indulgence is a grant by the pope for the remission of some or all temporal punishment in purgatory normally obtained through fasting, prayers, pilgrimages, or good deeds.)  Cardinal Albrecht of Mainz had obtained permission from Pope Leo X to conduct the sale of a special indulgence, with half of the proceeds from the sale going to the cardinal himself and half to the pope for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.  Tetzel depicted purgatory in such lurid terms that terrified folk willingly purchased the worthless pieces of paper.  Who wouldn’t free a dear departed friend or relative from the horrors of purgatory if all it took were some coins, albeit  hard-earned coins?  Tetzel is said to have used this little jingle as part of his sales pitch:

“As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

Enlightened citizens of the twenty-first century, we look back on Tetzel’s superstitious victims with pity.  Hearing about Bob Brady’s recent antics, however, I’m convinced that people today–at least, some of them–aren’t all that more enlightened than those who lived in Tetzel’s time.  After Pope Francis finished his address to the US Congress on September 24, Brady quickly made his way to the rostrum and snatched the pope’s water glass from which the pontiff had taken three sips in the course of his speech.  Brady hurriedly carried it to his office where he sipped a little and then passed it to his wife to do the same.  He then invited Senator Bob Casey, also a Catholic, into his office to view the precious liquid.  Casey brought along his wife and mother, and the three of them proceeded to dip their fingers into the water.  Brady then poured the remaining water into a bottle with the intention of sprinkling it on his grandchildren and one great-grandchild.  Brady is convinced that what he drank was holy water.  “I’m sure it’s blessed if the Pope drank out of it,” he explained. I can only imagine what Luther, known for his ‘earthy’ language, would have had to say about Brady’s ‘holy water.’

Pope2

Pope Francis

Image:  Courtesy Vincenzo Pinto, AFP/Getty Images

Two and half years into his papacy, Pope Francis has come to be admired, not just by devout Catholics but by people of all religious stripes, or even no religion at all.  (Although I doubt many of his  admirers would go so far as to drink his ‘backwash’ as Brady did.)  Pope Francis has become ‘the people’s pope’–everybody’s pope.

How did a Catholic pope get to be a ‘religious rock star’?  The source of his popularity is to be found in his welcoming attitude to gays and lesbians.  In July 2013, three months into his papacy, Pope Francis said this:

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

And two months later, he commented:

“…when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?  We must always consider the person.  Here we enter into the mystery of the human being.”

(Interestingly, both times the pope frames his response as a question.  In doing this, the pope never actually commits himself one way or the other.)  Gay activists and their supporters, along with those who think of themselves as ‘progressives’, were elated at the pope’s non-judgmental attitude.  Here was a pope the LGBT community and progressives  could embrace.  And embrace him they have:  the best-known LGBT magazine in the US, The Advocate , named Pope Francis its 2013 ‘Person of the Year’.  An adoring main stream media has played its part in popularizing this pope.  CNN’s reporting of the pope’s recent visit to the US is a case in point.  The pope’s visit received coverage the likes of which I have never seen before, surpassing any given to royalty or a rock star.

The pope was barely back in Rome, however, when it was learned that he had held a private meeting with Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who spent five days in jail for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licences.  Like a betrayed lover, the pope’s progressive admirers were furious and demanded to know how the pope could meet with a “bigot” and “hater” like Kim Davis.  The only explanation:  The pope must have been poorly briefed as to her identity; or, he must have been tricked somehow into meeting with her.

The Vatican’s response to the revelation of this meeting has been shameful.  First, the Vatican would neither confirm nor deny the meeting took place.  Then, they acknowledged that the meeting had indeed taken place, but it was not private.  Their final strategy was to downplay the significance of the meeting altogether, stating that the pope’s meeting with Kim Davis should not be taken as an endorsement of her position.  The pope, they claimed, had held only one private audience while in Washington, and that audience took place the day before the Davis meeting when the pontiff met with former student Yayo Grassi, an openly gay Argentine, who was accompanied to the papal audience by his boyfriend. (All this denial, dissembling, and distancing by the Vatican, when the current Catholic Church’s current position on same-sex marriage is no different from that of Kim Davis’s.)

I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.  Neither am I a particular admirer of Pope Francis.  Yes, he is a humble man, and yes, he is concerned with the poor–all very laudable.  But what does it say about a man who is regarded as the vicar of Christ by Catholics, yet won’t defend a fellow Christian unashamedly and unequivocally for her opposition to same-sex marriage, based on her Christian faith?  Pope Francis’ priority, it would appear, is not to alienate his LGBT and progressive supporters.

Events this morning may force the pope to take a stand, however.  Polish Catholic theologian Monsignor Krzystaf Charamsa, accompanied by his Spanish boyfriend, ‘came out’.  For the past twelve years Charamsa has been a mid-level theologian operating within the Vatican, involved with the defence and promotion of Catholic doctrine, all the while involved in a same-sex relationship.  Charamsa claims the majority of Catholic clergy are gay and  has issued a 10-point manifesto to the pope, calling on him to revise Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.  I, for one, am waiting for the pope’s response.