I was hesitant to post this interview because the grenade throwers who tend to comment on this blog will have plenty of 
ammunition, but Dan Savage’s sincerity in his essay about the death of his mother and his relationship with the Catholic Church is worth sharing. For those who don’t know, Savage is a gay rights activist and sex columnist who was the inspiration behind the It Gets Better project, a YouTube campaign aimed at preventing young adult suicide and curbing bullying. Savage was in the news this week for his talk to college journalists about bullying during which he said that the bible’s condemnation of homosexuality must go the way of its condemnation of shellfish.
On This American Life, Savage talks about growing up Catholic and how coming out led him to question the basic teachings of the church before ultimately walking away. He describes himself as an “agnoatheist,” not quite committed to atheism but not quite open to the idea of a living God either. He says that his life is still punctuated occasionally by some small markers of his former faith, and when his mother, a devout Catholic until the end of her life, passed away, he found himself sneaking off to Catholic churches for quick prayers or moments of silence. Ultimately, Savage says he remains unable to believe, but his connection to the Catholic faith seems to have quite the grasp on him.
Listen to the interview. What do you make of Savage’s connection to his faith even after he describes the pain the church has caused him and his family? Does his experience remind you of people in your life, people who may have left the church but who still turn to the comforting ritual in moments of pain or uncertainty? What is it about Catholicism that seems to grasp people long after they have left?
N.B. Google anything about Dan Savage and you will find enough links to post hundreds of negative comments attacking him, his ideas, and his language. But please, consider what he is saying in this interview, especially given the dramatic rise in the number of self-identified ex-Catholics.
Dan Savage’s remembrance ties Catholic ritual, aesthetics, and sacraments to that visceral something inside of us, something non-verbal that only reveals itself in extremis. And while reason, and some of the same headlines that Savage cites, prompted me to Anglicanism, the unreasoning, visceral part of me, the part that experiences the Communion of Saints, remains Catholic. Savage love indeed.
Savage did not call the bible bullshit. He called attention to the fact that christians have come to realize that it is dated, and that various societal imperatives put forward in it are no longer valid. This includes things like shellfish, slavery, and mixed fiber clothing. He was not calling the bible bullshit. So as much as you may like to think that, and as much as it may upset you - it's not the case. It *is* possible to READ, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND someone's potentially controversial opinion before jumping to conclusions.
As for the "pansy ass" comment. I think it goes hand in hand with dan savage's message. Challenge yourself. Don't be sheep. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANANANANA" because you don't like what you're hearing.
If Dan's boyfriend looks great in a speedo. Good for him. It's funny, and I don't see the problem. They're college students who should be able to handle a mildly provocative joke.
Wow. I related to many of his own problems with "The Church" as well as his deep attraction (and need for) sacrament. But I was probably most moved by the love he had for his mother and she for him, and how that love is what makes life real and gives Savage to courage to be as honest as he is. Her Catholicity was authentic. Sure, Dan is smart and articulate and can make things sound funny and clever, but what came through in this talk was his vulnerability. And that is what matters in communicating (which is what Church is all about: communion).
I believe that Church is much more than the "club" that it is portrayed as, in the pulpit as well as the media. I believe that Church means Body of Christ, and you can no more not belong to it than you can not belong to the human race or creation itself.
The task of the structural Church is to feed that deep place in our soul where we know that we belong.
That said, I think he really mishandled his recent presentation. If he had toned down his rhetoric, his points could have been received in a more thoughtful manner. That we all pick and choose what we want to read in the bible is without dispute. Slavery, eating shrimp, cutting our hair, all of these are addressed in the bible but we choose to ignore those verses. Dan's use of profanity and name calling were just wrong, although not surprising.
What we need more than anything is continued respectful dialog between various parts of this big tent called the Catholic Church. Dan is still a baptized Catholic. Perhaps, if there is a takeaway from Dan on this and actually something that he often calls for in his columns, it would be that there needs to be better communication and real listening, a lesson that he himself might have learned through the outcry against him.
Did you listen to the same interview that I did, David (#7)? I didn't hear anything that could be toned down.
This is what I listened to:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/379/return-to-the-scene-of-the-crime?act=3
I don't remember hearing any profanity or name calling. Maybe I missed it.
I'm sorry, t?hat's not challenging yoursel?f??,? ?t?h?a?t?'?s? ?n?o?t? ??"?g?e?t?t?i?n?g? ?b?e?t?t?e?r??".?.?.??t?h?a?t?'?s? ?r?e?v?e?r?t?i?n?g? ?t?o?? ?m?e?a?n?-??????s?p?i?r?i?t?e?d?????????? ?i?n?s?u?l?t?s? ?t?o? ?p?r?o?v?o?k?e? ?a? ?r?e?a?c?t?i?o?n? ?f?r?o?m? ?a? ?m????????????????????i?n?o?r?i?t?y? ?i?n? ?a? ?g?r?o?u?p? ?t?o? ?p?r?o?v?o?k?e? ?a? ?r?e?a?c?t?i?o?n?.? ? ??S?o?u?n?d?s? ?a?n? ?a?w?f?u?l? ?l?o?t? ?l?i?k?e? ?b?u?l?l?y?i?n?g? ?t?o? ?m?e??. ? ??????????
From: “Sacred Reading: The Act of Lectio Divina,” by Michael Casey, p. 44.
Michael Casey is a Cistercian monk and prior of Tarrawarra Abbey in Victoria, Australia.
As for Savage's reason for the insults...who cares? Think about the message it sends - you don't like what someone has to say, or that they choose not to listen to you, it's perfectly fine to lash out at them verbally. At BEST, it takes away form the message of "It gets better".
Speaking from painful experience, I can assure you the bullied could not care less about the motivation of their attackers.
I also have to say, concerning Bill Freeman's quote, that it is a nice sentiment, but one that really lacks basis in reality.
Bad form, et wot?