Growing up, I attended a lovely Catholic grade school named for the man called “Hitler’s pope.” To be fair not all—or even most—historians refer to the controversial pontiff Pius XII by this provocative moniker. But it is telling that in the sacred bubble of my school I had no idea its namesake was reviled by anyone.
For some, Pius is hailed as the hero who secretly saved the lives of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. For others, he is the cowardly politician who failed to speak out due to fear. In many ways, Eugenio Pacelli embodies the tension I feel about my Catholic faith. It is both the saving grace and the greatest challenge of my life. It is this constant internal tension that led me to write “The Chalice.”
I wrote this play because I was—I am—struggling with my faith.
“The Chalice” is the story of Alex, a formerly Catholic gay man, and his deeply religious sister, Angela, who inherit a relic of Pope Pius XII. Because of their contrasting relationships with the church and their vastly different interpretations of Pius’s legacy, they are thrown into a struggle over the object’s fate. Should the chalice be enshrined in a place of honor or should it be discarded and sold? Ultimately, Angela and Alex have to decide if and how they can heal their fractured relationship. And they have to decide what role, if any, their religion will play in that healing.
I wrote this play because I was—I am—struggling with my faith. The question is not whether I ought to be Catholic but rather: How ought I to be Catholic? What kind of Catholic am I to be? How can I continue to nurture my relationship with God, a relationship anchored in the church, but also acknowledge that I want change?
This is what I planned to write about: what happens when we, as Catholics, isolate, shame and abuse our L.G.B.T. brothers and sisters.
This friction created a spark, and that spark was art.
I do not wish to delve into an analysis of the church’s teaching on homosexuality. Suffice it to say that I have witnessed the pain of my gay and lesbian loved ones, and it troubles me deeply. I have also seen the trauma caused to gays by individual Catholics who have misunderstood the language of the catechism—who have taken it to read that gays and lesbians are defective. Many parishes do little to clarify the true meaning of the church’s teaching, allowing blatant homophobia to persist.
This is what I planned to write about: what happens when we, as Catholics, isolate, shame and abuse our L.G.B.T. brothers and sisters. I thought this, combined with the complex history of Pope Pius, was enough material for a play.
Apparently, God thought differently. An image came to me after I finished the first draft: a woman, prostrate on the ground, licking wine off the floor. I knew in an instant that the wine must be sacred. More important, I knew who the woman was: a close family friend and mother figure who also happened to be profoundly deaf. I wrote her into the play as Alex and Angela’s aunt, Janice. Suddenly, there was a new type of isolation being explored: that of a devoutly Catholic deaf woman.
If we want to heal the division between the church and the gay community, we have to meet them, humbly, where they are.
Then, during casting for the original production at The New School for Drama, we cast an African-American man as Alex. In a play where the characters consistently reference the Holocaust, race was not something I wanted to ignore. With the guidance of the actor, I rewrote the role of Alex specifically for a black actor. Once again, new dimensions of isolation and judgment seeped into the play. The issues of faith, race, sexuality and ability are intimately connected in ways that I barely understood at the beginning of this journey.
As a person of faith, I know that all of my accomplishments ought to be attributed to God. The irony is that most of my accomplishments are in some way a critique of God’s church. What I learned from this process is that God can handle this. God wants to be in the world. Catholic plays need not be performed in churches.
In this case, we have brought a play about God and Catholicism to The Stonewall Inn. This place, considered the historical birthplace of the gay rights movement, is a sacred space for the gay community. It is a sort of Mecca: a place you must see once. By producing the play here, in collaboration with their incredible staff, we are having the kind of dialogue the church ought to be having. If we want to heal the division between the church and the gay community, we have to meet them, humbly, where they are. We have to acknowledge our sins and ask for forgiveness. We have to listen and love.
The Catholic Church, as the name indicates, is diverse. So, too, is the world.
How sad that an article hoping to reduce divisions would begin with a blatant bearing of false witness against a venerable holy man. The historical evidence is clearly on the side of the heroic holiness of Pius XII. It undermines any idea of healing of divisions to libel him further by opening this article with such equivocation. This, it seems to me, is the fundamental weakness of the current outreach of Fr. Martin and his allies. It does not start from a position of honesty. It is a bridge built on presumptuous self-righteousness and aggrieved sentimentality, a bridge to nowhere. "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Mt 6:33
Looks like the author gave both viewpoints and did not pick a side.
Mike - that is the whole point. What does it mean to "not pick a side" between saying one is a Nazi (sympathizer or actual) and that one is a holy man? Most people do not know the details of the history and will assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But, the attack on Pius XII was a complete fabrication by an antisemitic writer (Rolf Hochhuth) in cahoots with the Soviet KGB (to discredit Catholic witness against Communism), later used by ex-Catholic fabulist John Cornwall, to undermine Catholic teaching on sexual ethics - seemingly the only remaining unifier of the left, given the implosion of the economic-political adventures. http://www.catholicleague.org/john-cornwell-breaking-faith/ and https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3124
"For some, Pius is hailed as the hero who secretly saved the lives of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. For others, he is the cowardly politician who failed to speak out due to fear. " Fr. Martin clearly presents both perspectives of the Pope. He clearly, secretly saved the lives of thousands of Jews during the holocaust. He also clearly did not speak out against the atrocities. Whether it was out of fear or being cowardly may certainly be up for debate, but there is no libel or false witness contained in the statement. How Ironic, though that you accuse others of building things on "presumptuous self-righteousness and [an] aggrieved sentimentality" while committing the act you accuse others of. Par for the course, however.
Sounds like he just has an axe to grind
Dionys - Ironic indeed. You haven't read the article or my comment closely enough, since Fr. Martin is not the author of the nefarious comparison. But, you perpetuate the same injustice by excusing the "Hitler's pope" moniker, even if the pope's failure was one of omission (not speaking out enough). Arguing for dialogue by beginning with argumentum ad Nazium (Godwin's law) has got to be close to oxymoronic. Par for the course, however (as you say).
It is a well-known fact that, as the chief negotiator of the concordat between the Vatican and the Nazi regime, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, was much more concerned about the communist influence in European politics than the fascist one. For that reason, as a codicil of the concordat, he ordered the Catholic Party in Germany to go out of business. It is true that he despised the Nazis and secretly rescued many Jews. Nobody in their right mind would accuse him of either collaborating with the Nazis or being anti-Semitic. However, his writings before becoming pope do indicate that he took an extremely negative view of the political influence of European Jewry, as did many other European Catholic prelates. He believed that he could do more for the Jews by remaining silent and working behind the scenes to save lives. It is paradoxical, however, that the leader of a Christian organization that places a higher priority on saving souls than saving lives should have forgotten the duty that he owed to the "truth." You, Mr. O'Leary, are constantly going on about the importance of relying heavily on dogmatic faith, and it is obvious that Pope Pius declined to tell the "truth" to the world about what was happening in Germany. Compare that to what Pius VII did about Napoleon and Napoleon's treatment of the French Catholic Church. Consider, also, please, what you might readily guess would have happened to the fate of the Roman Catholic Church in the 20th and 21st centuries, if Pius had remained faithful to the meaning of the liturgical colour of those scarlet robes he and his cardinals wore--how much more inspiring it would have been for the youthful idealists that the Church is so rapidly losing nowadays. It is a very well-documented fact that, at the end of his life, Pius himself wondered aloud if he had done the right thing. Even he knew, instinctively, that it was his duty to speak out publicly, as his predecessor was about to do, just before his untimely death. Pius XII Pacelli was definitely a good man, but he was also a weak one, undeserving of canonization because he failed in the category of HEROIC sanctity.
“Nobody in their right mind” - Precisely, Robert. Cornwall’s accusations of Pius XII being anti-Semitic and a secret Nazi are so ludicrous that anyone who makes them should be designated a quack (and not defended as just one reasonable side of the debate). Cornwall and Hochhuth should be consigned to the same cell of false witness as the Holocaust deniers.
I can agree with some of what you say. But, the overwhelming evidence favors a much more heroic picture of Pius XII. See especially the 2015 book by Mark Riebling, “an American historian and policy analyst who has researched and written on matters of national security and terrorism:” - Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War Against Hitler.
From the Crux review: “he turns his meticulous attention to the whole matter of Pope Pius XII and what he really did - or did not do - during Hitler’s ascendancy and in the face of the evils perpetrated by the Nazis and Fascists in the Second World War. Digging deeply into the Vatican’s archives and other documented sources, Riebling reveals how Pius XII, far from practicing silent indifference to what was happening, was busily waging his own war against Hitler through clandestine efforts to undermine his objectives and even to oust him from power.” https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2016/06/16/pius-xii-part-one/
Holiness does not preclude sinfulness.
You are conflating holiness with sinlessness.
Pius XII was not beyond moral reproach, and you should not consider him so.
o
What a beautiful and thoughtful way to heal with those who feel excluded from the Church.
This coming from a young, Catholic women - when the Church is losing this demographic. We should be celebrating our young women!
This play is focused on healing divisions and we are the Catholic (Universal!) Church.
A young lady questioning her Church history and is very much in line with the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. Well done!
Well said. Agreed.
I agree.
How does the gay community see this healing? By the Church's acceptance of the gay lifestyle? Everyone uses vague language like "building bridges" and "healing." Everyone would be better off if they were honest in their objectives. Father Martin is the lord of this dance. Does, as he often says, uphold church teaching, which would require chastity, or does he believe in gay relationships.?Everyone should speak plainly.
There is, of course, an agenda to confuse behind the purposefully vague language, and it helps no one. Why can't a Catholic simply love the sinner and reject the sin? Are we so conditioned that we accept that an intrinsically damiging lifestyle (both to the individual and society) is a core identity of a particular person? If we do we are being incredibly uncharitable behing a mask of love and acceptance, abandoning the person to deceit and its consequences.
"Why can't a Catholic simply love the sinner and reject the sin?" - Because this is the language people use when they clearly still reject the sinner and focus on the sins of a few while ignoring the sins of others, including their own self. It seems to me that pretending to love while still hating is in and of itself an intrinsically damaging lifestyle (both to the individual and society) and an indication of the sad core identity of a particular person.
I agree that what you are doing is "being incredibly uncharitable behind a mask of love and acceptance" while abandoning the person.
The language of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is Christianity since the beginning. Don't you hate your own sin? I know I hate mine. But the vileness of my sin makes me better appreciate the Love and Mercy of God and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I thank God that He hates my sin so much He died to free me from it. If He didn't hate my sin, I would know He didn't love me. You cannot love someone while accepting what is killing them, let alone affirming or endorsing it.
I think it's extremely ironic that an article attacked by so many Catholic homophobes is immediately followed on the AMERICA website by a review of Michelangelo's drawings at the MET. The exhibition catalogue for this show makes no bones about the artist's homosexuality, while at the same time giving ample credit to his sincere and intense religiosity. I bet no confessor ever asked Michelangelo, "how many times and how publicly and with whom?" The ASSUMPTION in that more civilized time than ours would have been that he tried to live chastely.
Most of the people responding on these threads to any article proposing charity for and acceptance of same-sex-attracted Catholic couples PRESUME that they want access to sacramental marriage, which is an entirely different thing from civil unions or spousal rights (to which they have every right under the American Constitution, because the Protestant majority in this country long ago rejected indissoluble Catholic marriage). No gay Catholic that I know wants to do any harm to the indissoluble, more "traditional-than-'traditional'", sacrament that Christ instituted at Cana. They simply don't want to have to live all of their lives in solitude. But to say, "we love the sinner, but hate the sin" presumes that: a) you know what they do with their genitals, which you don't; and b) that their relationships are somehow inferior to heterosexual couples' because, unlike heterosexual couples', theirs revolves exclusively around sexual activities. Would you say the same thing about heterosexuals' spousal relationships? Do you actually believe that a man cannot fall genuinely in love with another man, without seeking to get him into bed? Then what was Michelangelo doing with Tommaso di Cavalieri? I think some of you had better go and take a look at that exhibit at the MET, because I can't think of any more graphic illustrations of Hopkins' famous lines "...Christ plays in ten thousand places/Lovely in eyes, lovely in limbs not His/To the Father, through the features of men's faces..."
I should also like to suggest, to any of you genuinely interested in this conundrum facing the Church and her gay members, to take a look at a certain extremely scholarly and enormously well-researched tome, entitled "The Friend," by Alan Bray, who started out studying tomb monuments in British cathedrals and monasteries, and noted numerous embracing effigies on tomb monuments that suggest an almost conjugal relationship between numerous historical figures of the same sex. Then Mr. Bray began looking for liturgical rites associated with these monuments, and discovered documentation of a ceremony performed in churches of "sworn brotherhood," that was enacted in conjunction with reception of the Eucharist. Of course, the assumption made by THOSE more civilized Catholic and Anglican ecclesiastical organizations was that the "sworn brothers" were attempting to live chastely, and that's what I think the assumption should be now, too!
Robert - Am I to understand your position to be that a same-sex relationship is a fine thing as long as there is no genital sexual activity?
Yes, that is the ideal. It is to be striven for, and it is to be openly embraced by Churches, if we wish to put the calumny of "intrinsically disordered" behind us. In fact, "same sex attraction" must be one of the most sanctifying "crosses to bear" that could possibly be imagined--and the evidence is that many great saints have borne it, and have sublimated erotic attraction to their same sex into mystical, and indeed passionate love for Jesus Christ, as both man and deity, or for the Virgin Mother of God, as woman and intercessor.
Robert - I can certainly agree that "same sex attraction" is a heavy cross to carry and we should help them with love and truth and support. As Bishop Robert Morlino says "we should help them under the cross like Simon of Cyrene helped Jesus."
The "love and support" MUST include a public embrace that includes encouragement of them to find lifelong and monogamous partners to share a life with together, and a tacit assumption that, in that sharing, they embrace the virtue of chastity, but in a way unique to them, which must be different than the way in which married spouses are also called to embrace it. (Remember that, according to orthodox theology, chastity is also mandatory within sacramental marriage--in the sense that neither of the spouse's bodies may be used simply for sexual gratification or "relief".) And to be consistent, and in order to abandon an interpretation of "natural law" that flies in the face of what modern science is telling us about the etiology of homosexuality, as well as gender formation, the Church must also loudly proclaim that the divorce of the sacramentally married is equally as grave a sin as sodomy--and actually, by the logic of the meaning of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, a greater one.
Schmitt writes: "I knew in an instant that the wine must be sacred." There is no such thing as "sacred wine." It is either just wine or it is the Blood of Christ. Some more catechizing is due here.
If we want to heal the division between the church and the gay community, we have to meet them, humbly, where they are, and the church has to celebrate homosexual marriages just as it celebrates heterosexual marriages.
The Church cannot do that, because her "sacramental marriage" is profoundly different from Protestant marriages or civil marriages. In Catholic marriage, Jesus Christ is equally a member of the union as the opposite-sex couple are, and the promises are made to Him just as much as they are made to each other, and those promises are indissoluble. The Church CAN, however, bless a rite of "sworn brotherhood" or "sworn sisterhood," just as she once did, historically. The same assumption would be made, however, in the sense that it would be an oath before God, but with no purpose of procreation. Mr. O'Leary is right, in his comments above, that the Church finds a special and sanctified charism in heterosexuality, in that it is a guarantor of God's command to be "fruitful and multiply," but he tends, too often, to forget that, in the New Covenant, the greater vocation is to be a "eunuch for the kingdom's sake."
"In Catholic marriage, Jesus Christ is equally a member of the union as the opposite-sex couple are, and the promises are made to Him just as much as they are made to each other, and those promises are indissoluble." This is no obstacle to celebration of same-sex marriage by the Church.
"[T]he Church finds a special and sanctified charism in heterosexuality, in that it is a guarantor of God's command to be 'fruitful and multiply,' but . . . in the New Covenant, the greater vocation is to be a 'eunuch for the kingdom's sake.'" Indeed, St Paul said that he would have all celibate as he was. That this is the greater vocation implies that God's purpose to fully populate the earth was long ago realized and that the Church's celebration of marriages with no purpose of procreation does not contravene God's will. I dare say that the Church does celebrate marriages with no purpose of procreation; it will marry a couple whose members are beyond childbearing age and it will marry a couple one of whose members does not even have all necessary reproductive organs, and it will marry such couples without scruple.
No, the mere fact that a same-sex couple is barren gives no good reason for the Church to refuse marriage.
I want to try to be clearer and more explicit for you, but I'll refer you to a book by Brad Pitre for this; it's entitled "Jesus the Bridegroom." In this book, Mr. Pitre explains that the marriage of the heterosexual couple is part of the continuing work of Christ on the cross. In that marriage, the couple not only marry themselves to each other, but they marry themselves to Jesus Christ, because their sufferings, in what they agree to undertake, will be unique: they will involve the hardships of child-rearing, as well as the pain of childbirth. It is a lifetime commitment, and to break the commitment will be to betray Christ and His Church. It is fundamentally different from the "companionate marriage" of the Protestants and the American majority, because it is indissoluble. The sacrament marks them forever, just as the priestly vows of ordination mark him forever; there is no getting out of it. Christ cannot marry Himself to the gay couple of the vows of "sworn brotherhood" in the same sense that He can marry Himself to the heterosexual couple because only the PAIN of procreation can physically mirror and renew His suffering on the cross, in which He literally married Himself to the members of His Body, the Church. This is the aspect of the Church's sacrament of Holy Matrimony that she is doing a very bad job of explaining, in all this debate about "gay marriage," in part, I think, because this mystical aspect of matrimony is embarrassing to moderns, in that it seems weird--weird especially to the heterosexual Protestant and secularist majority--just as the Real Presence is weird to moderns. But it needs to be properly explained, because it is the rational--or should I say "mystical"--basis for her explanation to the world as to why she cannot "marry" two homosexuals. On the other hand, she could do a far better job of ministering to them if she would allow vows of "sworn brotherhood." In refusing to do what she once did in the past, she is turning her back on God's words, "It is not good for a man to be alone."
I don't mean to repeat myself. Sorry
I didn't mean to repeat these comments on the thread. Sorry
To be fair to your objections--as well as to my own and Mr. Pitre's description of what Christ is doing, both on the cross, and in the sacrament of Matrimony, I have to agree with you that the Church is doing wrong by marrying the barren and those who have no purpose of procreating. She should not condemn them for seeking civil union, but neither should she be involving Christ in a parody of what He did on the cross.
“Christ cannot marry Himself to the gay couple of the vows of ‘sworn brotherhood’ in the same sense that He can marry Himself to the heterosexual couple because only the PAIN of procreation can physically mirror and renew His suffering on the cross, in which He literally married Himself to the members of His Body, the Church. This is the aspect of the Church's sacrament of Holy Matrimony that she is doing a very bad job of explaining, in all this debate about ‘gay marriage,’ in part, I think, because this mystical aspect of matrimony is embarrassing to moderns, in that it seems weird--weird especially to the heterosexual Protestant and secularist majority--just as the Real Presence is weird to moderns.”
I think Mr Pitre’s rationale for the Church’s refusal to celebrate same-sex marriage seems weird to Roman Catholics in this day, and not only because they think it is “mystical” upon stilts.
First, if the parties to such a marriage were both women, not one but both could have the pain of procreation, and thus they would be able (per Mr Pitre’s theory) to doubly mirror and renew Christ’s suffering on the cross, in which He married himself to his Bride, the Church. That would make same-sex marriage of women the best kind of candidate for the Church's sacrament of Holy Matrimony – a weird interpretation of this sacrament, indeed!
Second, to my knowledge, at least, the Church has not officially defended its refusal to celebrate same-sex marriage by a line of reasoning like Mr Pitre’s – not ever. I can only assume that the Church has not proffered this defense because the Church finds it weird. Moreover, as you point out, if the Church were to proffer this defense, the Church would be bound by consistency to refuse to celebrate any marriage in which neither party could give natural birth to a child. Given the Church’s sacramental practice for centuries, this restriction probably would seem weird today.
Homosexuality is a sin. I believe that is still catholic teaching. Love the sinner. Hate the sin.
There is no "sin" in being "same-sex-attracted." What you are saying is heretical. The "sin" (if there is any, and if there is, it is to be determined contextually, in the confessional) is in the ACT of "sodomy". And it is a very minor sin, not at all equivalent to divorcing oneself from Christ, by breaking one's marriage vows. It is equivalent to the consumption of pork or the weaving together of two different textiles, as proscribed in Leviticus. No one throws himself out of the Church by making love to his or her friend.
Robert - where do you get the idea that sodomy is a very minor sin. Here is the Catechism: “The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are ‘sins that cry to heaven’: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.” (1867). Traditionally, these sins have been categorized as four distinct heinous acts: willful murder, the sin of Sodom, oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers of their wages." You can't just keep making things up and claiming they are Catholic. Either the Church is wrong or right on this, but you do not get to decide what it teaches. It is not honest. It kills dialogue for you to continuously misrepresent Catholic teaching.
"Cry to heaven" may mean "cry to heaven for rectification," and "rectification" may come in many forms--such as "rectification" by being alleviated through the Church's public embrace of the same-sex-attracted. I've just explained to you, in the thread above, how the Church once DID normalize, i.e. "rectified," the situation of the same-sex-attracted through "sworn brotherhood" sanctified by an oath during reception of the Eucharist. And the Church has MANY TIMES altered her teachings on moral theology and Church discipline, e.g. priestly celibacy, slavery, capital punishment, just war--and the list goes on and on, and it's all JUSTIFIED by the Petrine Commission, "to bind and to loose." It's high time to "loose" the Church's blanket condemnation of expressions of same-sex-love that are chaste. Many physical expressions considered "sodomitical" in the past, just aren't and should not be proscribed. You are a legalist, Mr. O'Leary, and Christ condemned the legalists of his time. You want to turn the Biblical injunctions, which are part of a LIVING DOCUMENT into a dead letter. That's not what orthodox Christianity is about, and, if you think it should be, there is a Protestant Fundamentalist church in your neighborhood that'll welcome you.
Mr. Lewis - You argue by appealing to phantom traditions and the Petrine Commission and then say I am a legalist for relying on Church tradition, written and oral. But, what need of appealing to precedent when you ridicule it by saying the Church is forever altering her teachings? You ignore or defame the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then claim I am a Protestant. You come up with Masonic-like "sworn brotherhood" gay ceremonies and claim you are defending orthodox Christianity. You ideas are completely goofy. I know of no Church or Temple (not sure about the Masons) who preaches your strange doctrine. Nobody in the LGBT community could even like your theories.
It is of no concern to me whatever if nobody in the LGBT community likes my theological musings; they are mine and mine alone. The "sworn brotherhood" ceremonies and monuments are extremely well documented; they're just unpopular with Biblical fundamentalists who detest gay folk, like you.
It is only calumny that would make you say I detest "gay folk", particularly people I hope to be saved, who are already loved by God much more than any human can. You are a very sad fellow, mired in your own fundamentalist judgmentalism.
Homosexual desire is abnormal and defective, but it is not a sin. Homoerotic acts may be sins just as heteroerotic acts may be sins. Acts that are full expressions of sexual desire -- homosexual desire or heterosexual desire -- are sins if the parties to these acts are not married to each other. (They are sins also if a party has not consented, etc.)
There is no good reason for the Church's refusal to celebrate homosexual marriage of Christians on the same terms and conditions that it celebrates heterosexual marriage of Christians.
EDITORS; please allow THIS so that, pace Mr. O'Leary, folks will understand that Alan Bray's scholarship is not "goofy."
Pius Xll now appearing at The Stonewall Inn. Is this stretching it a bit?
Are you making fun? Mel Brooks presents. Who was it said: With best intentions Catholics go over the mark only to miss the mark altogether. An example: Some years ago small number of Carmelite Nuns expressed interest in founding a small convent on the site or very near a German Concentration Camp. Rankling the Jews as well politics, the request was immediately refused. Why I am associating their 'Bo-Bo of Holy Desire' with this Catholic play featuring Pius Xll at the Stonewall, I can't express any better than my respectful comment here.
I see that my comment of yesterday was found improper for posting.
I expect this entry will likewise not see the light of posting. Notwithstanding, I do write again basically to cast a vigorous and negative vote against bringing Pius Xll to Stonewall. Why? Doing so is over-reaching for attention, embarrassing, in bad taste, sadly funny.
I write this in charity as well as with common sense. I was at the Stonewall that summer of '69. Let it alone have the courtesy.