No need to go into Latin

Once upon a time medical and clerical textbooks moved into Latin when discussing sex and especially what has been called homosexuality. I guess the idea was to protect the innocent faithful laity from picking up ideas.

The practise has more or less disappeared but some versions of it, where euphemisms appear instead of plain speaking, linger on. In this week's Tablet there is a sad little story about a 26 year old gay man in a civil partnership getting elected to a parish council somewhere outside Vienna. The Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Dominican, clever and once considered a possible pope, had his spokesman tell us that active homosexuality is a grave sin.

I just want to think for a moment on what means "active homosexuality". Are we talking sex here, in who does what to whom? or are we talking "lifestyle" in the current patois? If we are talking sex is this a reference to anal sex? I think we should be told. If it is that  ano-receptive sex deemed to be less of a grave sin. I think we should know. If it is the case that anal sex is always and everywhere out of court do we need to get on and tell heterosexual couples this as well. One final forensic point: does there have to be oral, anal, vaginal penetration for it to be deemed sex (as in the Clinton get out?).

Even though the Archbishop of Vienna is probably a nice man he really does need to spell out what he means by having words like "grave" sin used without clarity as to the meaning. To repeat if he is talking about sex then I think he should say so. Otherwise, we are left with vagaries like "lifestyle" which usually ends of meaning shopping at Waitrose and living in a minimalist house and having copies of gay novels, DVDs and newspapers actually visible in front of visitors,

Third sunny day in a row

Just a few days of unseasonal sunlight and warmth seems to change the national psyche. I know the very idea of there being a national psyche is fictive but who cares on a day like this? People suddenly look different, not just burned, but more outgoing. Even strangers start talking to each other. brrrrr
I wonder what it would be like if we had a reliable 6 months of this weather every year?

Gay Lesbian films at Phoenix

Check out this coming weekend's offerings at Pheonix.

benedict in Cuba

benedict 16th looks very unwell. I wonder how much lomger he will survive?

From the door step

It is surprising what a few warm days do to people's mood and habits. Suddenly, the national mood is raised and I take to sitting out side of the house by the front door. People walking stop to talk, those driving sometimes wave and the value of the houses in the street do not fall by that much money.

The local version of the evening walk is quite swift but people do seem to like to stop and chat as well.

Two cities, two days, two operas

People ask sometimes, usually meaning to be sympathetic, "Do you get out much?" I try and be cheerful and tell them I do as much as I can. Friday, I was at Royal Opera in Covent Garden to see their new piece Miss Fortune. Well, notwithstanding a slating from the critics, it was not that bad. The singing was good, the sets were excellent, the orchestra as ever. Paul Daniels was in control, Emma Bell was the lead and the new rising star in the higher tenor range is Noah Stewart. NS is from Harlem, trained at the Julliard, loves his mother, gets lots of air time in the UK. Sang the best number in the show. Pity his kebab trailer goes up last summer's rioting flames. For me the only real problem was the break dancers. Oh what fun when the posh let their hair down (tip: don't). We had a meal afterwards at Les amis near by. Never again. Food mediocre, bill far too high. We ware joined by the delightful Noah. He is such good fun to be with.  suspect we will be seeing a lot more of him Europe.

Saturday night, to Birmingam Community Opera doing a new Joanathan Dove Life is Dream. This really was opera perhaps because of it being done in a large, disused fo factory that stands as a monument to industrial britain now gone. This is the first visit to BCO although I have heard much of previous shows - especially Monteverdi.

I think last night was the best night at the opera I can ever remember. I kept getting reminded that the very word OPERA means 'the works' so here we were at a works having the works done before here eyes, Graham Vick directs. It is sometimes hard to know who is performer and who audience. Surreal surely but not to  be missed,

Early warning, The same team are doing Stockhausen's unperformed six hour Mittwoch aus Licht (Wednesdsay from Light). This is the Olympic show piece by BCO but there are lots of events.

After all this a rest is indicated.

End of season of Thursday lunchtime concerts in Leicester

Those who think that first-rate high culture stops at the M25 or, worse, is confined to single digit London post codes zone one on the Tube, it must come as a terrible shock to learn that for under a tenner the very best of chamber music is available in Leicester. Leicester is just over an hour from St Pancras with four trains an hour. The Queen came visiting last week to start her Jubilee tour and saying yes to this multi racial reasonably harmonious city, by going to Church for a multi faith service, by visiting the increasingly impressive De Montfort University and by meeting the (elected) major, Sir Peter Soulsby, with the citizens and denizens gathered in the streets to greet her.

To return to music. The Leicester International Music Festival provides us with the Thursday lunchtime concerts, summer celeb recitals and every September a long weekend of non-stop chamber music. Nicholas Daniels, recently honoured by the Queen, directs the whole and brings the best of the rising generation up here.

One of the special treats of the concerts are the intelligent programme notes (Mr Wheeler, step forward and thanks for the extended internet version) and the pithy intros by Mr Mike Baker.

Many concerts now sell out and the queues are to behold. Hint: get the value season tickets. The season ended today with the triumphant return of the Sitkovetsky trio playing Haydn's piano trio in C major Hob. XV: 27 and Beethoven's Archduke trio Op.97. I thought the speed of the last movement of the Haydn was possibly reckless but all worked out well in the end. The Archduke was, er, er, archducal. Very moving and authoritatively played. I thought I knew both trios well but this so gifted group of musicians brought altogether new insights to me.

One suggestion for improvement: in a city with such a rich cultural heritage as Leicester it really is a pity that some efforts are not made by the organisers to include at least some of Indian classical music. All it needs is the same bravery shown by them in including contemporary western classical music. The other sad lack is jazz. Yet when one recent performer shifted from the classical canon into jazz the audience seem to love it. This audience is up for stretching I think. As Alex Ross shows in his ground breaking book 'The rest is noise' the categories (of classical, jazz, folk, popular) that used to separate increasingly fall to bits in one's hands when examined carefully. Pragmatically, although I do not know if the Festival gets City Council funding, but if it does, it really does need to think about the wisdom of not including some classical music from the non western traditions. This is not just to appease those who check the demographics of any publicly funded event (old, bourgeois and white mainly) but a wish to widen the audience for nonwestern classical music. I realise we are someway from having a Leicester Gamelan but if we can have a Fazioli piano up at the DMH, why not think big.

Gripes apart this is written by a punter who is deeply grateful for what we get. Special thanks to Catherine and Tim Watt for the care they provide for the disabled. Much appreciated.

The man in the red hoodie with a yellow chaise roulant says thanks.

Quite the best so far

Robert Shrimsley in last weekend's FT on how the Catholic is ruining his marriage:

My marriage is under threat; its very existence is being undermined. I know this because the Catholic Church says so. I’m not Catholic myself, you understand, but if there’s one thing those priests know about, it’s marriage. Similar warnings are coming from other faith-leaders and the rightwing commentators.

And it’s all because of those pesky gays.

It turns out that the very foundations of our union will be irrevocably eroded if gays are allowed to marry. No less an authority than Rick Santorum, currently running second for the Republican presidential nomination, says redefining wedlock to include gays could “cheapen marriage… make it something less valuable, special”. Scotland’s leading Catholic bishop appears to argue that if gay marriage is legalised, the clamour will start for polygamy to be similarly blessed. But it’s not just marriage at stake. The Pope says that allowing gays to call themselves married is one of a number of threats to “the future of humanity itself”. Yikes.

More

ON THIS STORY

• Robert Shrimsley The best film I’ve ever eaten
• Robert Shrimsley My welfare plan (no shelf-stacking required)
• Robert Shrimsley Bourne again… and again… and again
• Facebook friends the art of deletion
• Leonard Cohen froze my bank account

ROBERT SHRIMSLEY

• A PR strategy for the Kony fightback
• A supercomputer for Citigroup
• Wanted - celebrity criminals
• Soccer spurns handshake

Marriage, according to our religious leaders is less a robust, timeless institution than a precious, delicate thing – a dandelion in the wind, easily blown away by others you’ve never met enjoying the same benefits. It’s like being a member of an elite club and then finding out that Katie Price has joined. You wonder if you still belong.

I understand where they are coming from. I recently bought an espresso machine to which I was hugely attached until I noticed Whittard was selling the same model to gays. Suddenly my macchiato seemed cheapened; and questioned my commitment to the morning shot. Now the Illy languishes untouched and I have begun dallying with an old jar of Maxwell House I was once close to. We’d fallen out of touch after I’d committed to proper coffee but recently reconnected via Facebook. So I’m wise to the dangers of gay marriage. We all saw what happened when homosexuality was legalised. Crime rates soared, obviously because people felt their previous law-abiding status had been devalued by the decision to stop treating gays as criminals.

My wife and I are resigned to our fate if the government presses ahead with reform and have already begun discussing custody arrangements. It’s a pity; because we’ve been happy together. But it’s clear that at the first glimpse of Boy George at the altar I’ll abandon my family and move out to small flat above a Pizza Hut. Across the nation, young couples will cancel their engagements, put off by the weddings of other adults who love each other and increased competition for wedding venues from gays and polygamists.

When otherwise intelligent people rely on such specious arguments, you have to wonder whether it isn’t because they daren’t say what they truly believe – that gays are lesser human beings who should be denied the same rights as others. It would be wrong to tar everyone in this way, but it is striking how many of the most vociferous objections come from those with a less-than-stellar record on gay rights.

Where opponents of gay marriage have a point is in noting that there seem to be few benefits not already secured by civil partnerships. But like any excluded minority, it is natural for gays to rail against exclusion. It is hard to believe that all those Jews who used to campaign against their exclusion from elite golf clubs actually wanted to join them. I don’t think there’s ever been a great Jewish golfer and it’s a long walk to the club house if you get hungry. But when someone takes the trouble to bar you, well, a chap can take that kind of thing personally.

One of the most striking (and heartwarming) social developments of the past decade is just how quickly civil partnerships have become entirely unremarkable. It is hard to believe the same would not be true of gay marriage. But maybe this easy acceptance is what is really driving the increasingly apocalyptic warnings. Perhaps, what worries opponents is not that marriage and society will be disastrously undermined by this reform, but that they won’t.

robert.shrimsley@ft.com

Tablet comes out for Soho masses throughout UK

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/266/17

Campaign for marriage

If you want to know more about our friends in the Campaign for Marriage please see

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/03/05/comment-the-coalition-for-marriage-a-creeping-rhizome-of-religious-extremism/

Rowan goes back to Cambridge

Mixed news. we knew that Rowan was about to leave Lambeth and for Cambridge but not when. Now we know he starts next year as President of Magdalen following Eamon Duffy, esteemed historian of the reformation. Rowan could not stay any longer without risking his mental health surely? His attempt to keep the Anglican Church together was over ambitious and allowed some to think they actually run the church with their opinions which are borderline hate crimes in my opinion. I just wish he had been able to put aside his idea of communio and manage to speak truth to power. In a small way he made me think of Pius 12 during the second world war when he thought he could save the German church by not condemning the massacre of the Jews. Perhaps not a good example but a pointer.

I still think Rowan one of the greats of contemporary thinking not just religious either. Learned, witty, eyebrowed, a good man. He deserves the mastership of a Cambridge college. I last saw him at Kings Place the Guardian HQ by St Pancras. He was in discussion with the economics editor, a sociology of work and Susie Orbach. Rowan just swept all before him with his scholarship but more so with his wit and good humour.

This is further encouragement to persevere with the Brothers Karamozov before reading Rowan's book on the subject.

The marriage equality debate moves on

We are exhausted. My civil partner and I have worked hard this last week or two. We have attended a number of meetings in Leicester and managed to ask questions of various heirarchs about their views on marriage equality and/or civil partnerships. We have been aghast at some of the examples of homonegativity and/or hate we have encountered. We managed to get questions to the Archbishop of Westminster when he spoke at Leicester University on Tuesday. It was such a pity that his talk was derivative and unimpressive. Afterwards, he was personally warm with us having just recorded an interview with Radio Leicester. The interview had him telling the world that there was a huge difference between a heterosexually married couple and a same sex couple. Although his (and Peter Smith) were more eirenical than Cardinal O'Brien the message is the same. It feels as if there has been a rowing back from the position on marriage that has evolved over the last 4o years that gives equality to the procreative and the affectional ends of marriage. We are back with Darwin and making babies. What an opportunity has been lost? I, along with many other Catholics, feel deeply disturbed by this reactionary position and hope that it will encourage fellow Catholics to speak out (I am not holding my breath).

It used to be said that celibacy was the summit of human achievement for catholics with marriage coming much lower in the pecking order.

Marriage? Civil Partnership? a week in LE2

Well, the letter from archbishops Vincent Nicholls and Peter Smith, has come and gone. It was meant to be read out this weekend. The church I attend did not benefit from the oral version, Thank God, and the existence of the paper version was pointed out by the priest at the end of mass. The homily was largely about the ten commandments with a link to the NT about the primacy of love. I never knew that the commandment about nor stealing referred to kidnap (stealing people) or so a hebrew bible scholar has argued.

This week in Leicester. Theme of the week seems to be outsiders.

Monday sees anti gypsy and traveller permanent site demonstration. DMU production of The Laramie Project starts on Monday also at Curve. This was sparked by the murder of gay teenager Matthew Shephard in Wyoming.

Tuesday archbishop Vincent at the university.

Station Mass at Holy Cross Wednesday 7.30. Philharmonia at DMH Wednesday.

Thursday first night of Gypsy at Curve. 7pm.

Saturday 17th St Patrick's day mass at St Patrick's with the bishop.
Canvassing in Queens Road against the NHS bill in the morning and rally at the Adult Education College in Wellington Street at 2pm.

Spot the outsider theme, eh?

Coull Quartet in Leicester

The Coull Quarted played Haydn, Shostakovitch and Beethoven to a packed audience at the University of Leicester Embrace Arts centre last night. They were excellent and much helped by the programme note and brief introductions by the second violinist. My concert partner and  I were treated to seats so close to the players that we could see the notes on their copies of the music.This gave an impression of what it is like to play in a string quartet especially the intimacy and closeness of the other players.

Background reading: Vikram Seth An Equal Music

Iain McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary

I have had this book now for a couple of years and not read it until recently. I was reluctant at first because because because...and now I am glad I have. To get a taste of it there is a You Tube 30 minute lecture by McGilchrist at the RSA which is accessible. As are many of the other links on You Tube.

If you have any comments before, during or after reading the book please let me know.

Stephen Hough on the culture wars, from Daily Telegraph

Gay marriage and Catholics

By Stephen Hough Lifestyle Last updated: March 6th, 2012

333 Comments Comment on this article

As a gay Catholic I suppose I should be in the perfect position to comment on the recent flurry of news stories in the media about the Church's opposition to gay marriage. Actually being in the middle of the debate enables me perhaps to see both sides and thus to have less of a fixed opinion that might be expected.

I am embarrassed by Cardinal O'Brien's outbursts last weekend, in print and on air. He seems to me to have closed ears and hearts, to have advanced the cause he was opposing, and to have allowed his determination to be seen as someone defending Christian values to trump the values themselves. He makes it much harder for saner and wiser Christian voices to be heard.

Fr. Timothy Radcliffe O.P.

I am heartened by Father Timothy Radcliffe's article in The Tablet which tries to place marriage and partnerships from a Catholic viewpoint in a clearer perspective. As the former head of the Dominican Order worldwide, he is the most senior churchman to offer a revisionist view on this issue.

But what about the man in the middle, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, andthe upcoming campaign to halt the change in the law? One problem is that the argument about the meaning and ends of marriage has changed. The Church altered its teaching from the mid-20th century onwards away from the traditional 'procreation first, relationship second' to an equal billing for the two. Pope John Paul II was a key thinker in this shift of official opinion when he was still a mere priest teaching in Poland – a hundred years ago he would have been considered a heretic for his views. But people now, at least in the West, primarily choose their partners based on love, companionship and compatibility. That is not going to change.

Then there's social science (a.k.a. the understanding of how God's creation works) which has changed the way we think of same-sex attraction. A hundred years ago the very word 'homosexuality' was newly minted and any act of intimacy between two men a criminal offense. Research has been published with regularity over the past years which gives force to our understanding that being gay is something out of our control. Even if you don't accept the mounting genetic evidence, no onechooses to be attracted to one gender or the other. The awareness of our own preference is presented to us at around the same time as the awakening of love itself – significantly, before we connect it with procreation. In fact, affective attraction arrives before its genital counterpart – a further pointer that homosexuality is simply something in nature, thus 'natural'.

Then there's the fact that more straight people divorce than remain married these days – an 'unfortunate' statistic for those who would suggest that traditional marriage is an unassailable force for social cohesion. I know of straight couples whose relationships have been strengthened by their same-sex friends or neighbours: "If they can make it work, why can't we?" The argument that gay marriage will damage straight marriage is patently untrue. It may actually be the opposite. But, I'm sad to say, those who want to demonize gay relationships hate to see them working well.

AIDS changed many things, not least the awareness that, long after sexual attraction had disappeared into hacking coughs and festering sores, heroic love and deep commitment were gracing hospital wards across the globe. This was not a question of one-night stands, but of nightly sitting at the bedsides of loved-ones.

If Fr. Radcliffe's lone voice were a united choir from the bishops worldwide the Church might be in a better position to discuss this issue and make a valuable contribution. But I'm afraid the secular world knows that, left to itself, the Church will tell the gay 13 year-old (whether Christian or not) that the only option for him or her for the rest of life is celibacy … 'till death do us part. Offering no alternative to that position brings the discussion screeching to a halt; and until just one gay bishop (they exist) is willing to stand up and say, "I'm gay and celibate" there is no role model to support the official teaching, thus no honesty, and thus no way forward.

The closets are collapsing and the theologians don't know what to do about it. There are actually only two honest possibilities: if homosexuality is as immoral as Cardinal O'Brien suggested then the Church should be trying to make it illegal again; if it isn't then the Church should be trying to help gay relationships be holy, stable and celebrated.

Until this week I was loosely on the side of the 'civil partnerships, yes; marriage, no' side of the fence. But do I hear music? It seems to be in C major, to be bright and rousing. Yes, and the composer is Felix Mendelssohn.

Culture wars continued

When a person goes on and on and on about the evils of this or that we often say, "He protests too much". Reading the words of Cardinal O'Brien and listening to him on the Today programme yesterday is to witness  a man flailing about, lost, shouting for a world that has changed. From where do his images come? Words like grotesque and comparing same sex marriage to slavery seem to emanate from a paranoid internal world that is in turmoil. 

Monitoring my own reactions to the gay marriage question makes me aware of a shift in my own thinking. A few weeks ago I was indifferent, feeling that I do not want to ape heterosexual patterns and as long as civil partnerships provide the same benefits as marriage then that was fine. However, the homonegativity that the gay marriage question has evoked from some religious leaders has pushed me into taking a line that supports same sex marriage for those who want it. Neither my civil partner nor I do want it but want other gay and lesbian people to be able to get married if that is what they want.

The words of Cardinal O'Brien have done much to galvanise support for gay marriage. Ironical, or what? Well done. 

from the culture war trenches in LE2

Listening to Cardinal O'Brien on the Today programme this morning was decidedly odd. Does the Cardinal have any sense at all that he is  senior member of a church not just a man on the terraces at a rough football match. Talk of grotesque and slavery serves only to discourage those who might be amenable to his views.

Life here in the house is one of a continual conversation with each other, with visitors, with friends on the phone, via email, Skype, twitter....it is endless.

A month ago, my position was one of general indifference to same sex marriage. I did not see the need to copy heterosexuals and rather liked our distinctive status. As the days have gone by my view has shifted to one where I now support marriage equalities that allow those who want marriage to have it. The likes of cardinal O'Brien and his language now convinces me that it is right to work for marriage equality but I do not want it for myself. Neither does my civil partner, he tells me, for himself.

I was surprised and pleased at the Daily Telegraph blog inviting readers to record their opinions. Currently, more than 70% voted for gay marriage. My sense that more people in the country as a whole are in favour than against is supported by the DT. It will be interesting to see how the Daily Mail jumps.

The word 'grotesque'

Jewish people have for centuries in Europe been labelled as 'grotesque'. Images of Jewish people have been routinely made to look strange. Noses, symbolically phallic, have been used to make non Jewish people aware of their Jewish neighbours.

When a cardinal of the catholic church uses the word to describe the celebration of a same sex couple's relationship, then we know there is something profoundly wrong. Gay people are being used as scapegoats as has groups as black and asian, lesbian, gay, transgender and queer people. We are one step away from the vilification of Jews by the Nazis.

The culture wars arrives here

As I have been predicting the culture wars -isues such as same sex marriage - have spread from the USA to Scotland and have now arrived south of Hadrian's Wall. Mr Cameron, leader of the Conservative party, said he was in favour of gay marriage "because (he) is a conservative". The coalition government are starting a consultation this month and the main opponents will come from religious leaders. These religious leaders rarely if ever tell the media that their faith group has a range of opinions about the rights and wrongs of same sex marriage and, certainly in the mainstream Catholic and protestant communities, many lay people support the idea.

Who owns marriage? Who is to say who can and cannot get married? These are real questions.

It is not just in the UK that the question is being taken up. Here is an Australian contribution, schmaltzy but making a point:

If you want to read an intelligent statement look at the website of Stonewall on these matters:http://www.stonewall.org.uk/media/current_releases/7345.asp

For those Catholics and other interested readers who cannot wait for a week to read the letter to be read out next Sunday from archbishops Vincent Nichols and Peter Smith just drop me a note and I will let you have a copy (free). My first reading is that it is carefully drafted but it needs a robust challenge from those who do not agree with its conclusions.