the vatican's stance on in-vitro fertilization...

seems off their message concerning marriage.

The Vatican issued its most authoritative and sweeping document on bioethical issues in more than 20 years on Friday, taking into account recent developments in biomedical technology and reinforcing the church’s opposition to in vitro fertilization, human cloning, genetic testing on embryos before implantation and embryonic stem cell research.

Vatican Issues Instruction on Bioethics, New York Times, Dec 13, 2008

Given the church's stance on marriage is for procreation and is only allowed in opposite-sex partnerships, doesn't this rule go against a core belief? if a couple marries to have children and discovers that it is impossible in the normal way [normal according to the RC] why is it wrong for them to use any means to bring more members into the church? It is a life in their definition.

The article in the NYT cites the “Dignitas Personae” that has just been released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document is much broader than just in-vitro. It includes stands on abortion, birth control, stem cell research and other bioethical issues, as they define them.

One should understand that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is made up of a bunch of old men, clergy, who are not supposed to have sex and are responsible only to the pope and two-thousand years of mythology. Their stand not only applies to the faithful but to all medical and scientific persons who would administer or research no matter what their faith.

A representative from a U.S. organization of catholic medical members explained in-vitro this way:

Kathleen M. Raviele, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Georgia who is president of the Catholic Medical Association, said she tells her patients: “God creates through an act of love, and that’s not what’s happening in the laboratory. It’s the technician who’s creating. What in vitro does, is it separates the creation of a child from the marital act.”

Why would concieving a child in-vitro not be considered a marital act of love? If a couple wants to have a child and they are incapable themselves, why not use in-vitro and, I'd assume, in some cases, a surrogate mother? A life is a life.

Of course, I'm sure there are other considerations behind this "The Dignity of the Person" document, icluding the timing of its release - same-sex marriage, Obama's defense of stem cell research, birth control use in the U.S., etc.

I long ago left the RC of my own volition first, because I couldn't handle the hypocrisy and second, because I no longer could believe in the mythology. There is an issue with faith and believing but, in its present two-thousand year old formulaic incarnation, it declines the one thing that is the basis of that faith and belief - free will.

A bunch of old men, in their infinite wisdom, set out the rules in the guise of guiding the faithful to act as they should but take away the one right they possess - the right to chose.

ironic or hypocritical? i'm not certain into which it falls. maybe both...

coming out of the bushes?

i'll be explaining this as this site develops. the idea for this blog has been brewing in the back of my head for awhile now. i wasn't quite sure what i wanted to do with the idea or how i wanted to proceed. i searched for a formulation of what it was that i wanted to convey by doing this blog.

there was a false start back in June, but i couldn't take it anywhere. i really wasn't certain how i wanted to proceed. i think maybe i have a working idea now.

originally, what happened to jump-start my idea was viewing a program on WTTW11, the public television station in Chicago, entitled Out and Proud in Chicago.

it left me kind of cold.

there was a lot of factual and historical information in the documentary. for example, the Jane Addams and Mary Rozet Smith story. The tale of Albert D. J. Cashier who fought in the Civil War from Illinois but was actually born Jennie Irene Hodgers, living as a man until she died. Tony Jackson an African-American gay composer and pianist who shaped the world of music by bridging the gap between ragtime and jazz. they are all relevant; they were all benefactors to the world; and they all made lasting contributions.

it took me weeks to figure out what exactly gave me the reaction i had to the program. believe me, i am not trying to belittle the producers, directors, contributors, sponsors, etc. in their endeavor. i would imagine they were working under constraints of time, funding, depth, etc. the program was a start, and probably served a lot of people, lgbtq & straight, a great history of the community. but, as a member of the community, it left me unsatisfied, as i indicated.

what i realized was missing [again, for me] was the spirit of the proud part in the title.

there was no real explanation as to from where that came; when the community became self-aware; how the facts presented translate into the feelings, emotions, and courage that abounds today; and why lgbtq is so vibrant in the city, if not in the country and world because of what was happening.

from where did all of this come? with whom should the onus lie? when did the shift actually happen from hiding in the bushes, to trimming them down, and to coming out of them? there were, of course, the movers and shakers mentioned and interviewed in the program. they set the tone.

however, who did the leg work? did they know they were doing it? how did the community develop? was there a plan? evolutionary or revolutionary?

i'm not an expert, but i lived through the times. i'm not all knowing, but i have stories that represent what was going on during part of the history. i'm a little cog in the gears. i searched for my own way out of the bushes.

how did i do that? i went in to the bushes.


the first thing is to explain coming out of the bushes rather than out of the closet.

a lot of people are familiar with Boystown in Chicago on Halsted Street between Belmont and Addison Avenues. it is/was the gay section in the city starting in the late 1970's early 1980's. the bushes was a bar on the street. actually, it was the second gay bar on the street, but only by a few weeks. unknown to each other, the bushes and Little Jim's opened their doors. Little Jim's is still there, but the bushes isn't. of course, today there are many lgbtq bars on Halsted. there have been others that came and went and some, like Soundtrack and Roscoe's, that have had staying power.

many guys took there first steps coming out on Halsted. i did. in the bushes. hence, why the blog and the explanation of my coming out of the bushes rather than the closet.

what i hope to do is tell some stories of which i was either part or was told; to reflect on some of the things that happened and how they affected me; and to also write about current LGBTQ experiences, news, issues, etc. and maybe try connect them with my observations and thoughts of how they may make a difference and how the past 30 years could have lead up to where we are today.

we'll see what happens. if you stay with me through this excursion, great. of course, first some people need to find this place and their own way out of the bushes...

mike/

"THE" Newsweek article...

i finally read the article in Newsweek - Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy - published Dec 6, 2008. if you've missed it, i recommend that you click on the link to read it.

the article, if you are not familiar, uses the Bible, just as the anti-gay marriage people do, as a means of supporting same-sex marriage. it's interesting and i've been familiar with most references in the article. the main points are 1) that there is no direct reference to homosexuality in the either the New or the Old Testament and 2) the message of Jesus was inclusion of all people in the love and joys of his father.

the more interesting part of the article is the comments following it from readers. [Note: Newsweek has had to suspend people from making additional comments because the server couldn't handle it. interesting!]

the comments have the usual mix of arguments that have been going around for the last number of years. there are people who say that the Good Book cannot be wrong; there are others who say that the book was written for the specific times it makes rules for and a lot is lost in translation; some comments are very well thought out and written and others are, well, ridiculously blind.

i was especially struck by the latter. the people who have their blind faith with no question or thought are especially rancorous. it is almost as if they are threatened that their entire world will end if same-sex marriage becomes widely accepted. of course, the article and the comments also point out this similarity to slavery, but it makes no difference to them.

personally, after reading both the article and its comments, i more firmly believe something that i've thought for a long time:

if Jesus were alive today, there is one thing he would not want to be - a christian!

blasephemy? afraid not. i'm no longer a believer in the mythology. only in its inherent message of brotherly love and equality of all.

cross posted at no matter what... eschew obfuscation...