Two Holy Fathers

article-0-18E07F10000005DC-708_634x413

Both men dressed in papacy white for the occasion(someone say, “awkward!”), but that didn’t matter. The only thing that mattered was the love between two very well-dressed and invariably sweet-smelling men who were meeting for the first time in public since their arranged marriage of mind, body, and Holy spirit.

In what was an historic meeting on the Holy Helipad at the papal summer retreat, the two Popes ran to each other across the tarmac and embraced in a deeply spiritual moment of blessed man love. They looked into each other’s eyes and prayed for it to never end. Then they dined and talked privately over brunch, and some could only speculate what the conversation revolved around, or what sort of meal they shared. Perhaps Pope Francis passed the wine to Pope Benedict and their fingers touched gently, and maybe for that moment they both felt free, and forgiven, as two star-crossed lovers of Jesus in the night consummating their historic bond in an unprecedented Holy matrimony. The details don’t really matter, though. Nah.

What matters is the natural love between two men and their God-given right to celebrate it. Openly. Without shame, or institutional condemnation, or barriers to one another.

It was a coming out, and coming together moment for the Catholic church which has been conspicuously reluctant to acknowledge what everyone already knows: What is love for Jesus but a deep down love of another man?

After a brief honeymoon involving lots and lots of prayer and the presentation of an antique icon of the Madonna(experts suggest originating somewhere between Like A Virgin and Like A Prayer dynasty, but no one can say for sure)Pope Francis was whisked away in the Holy Helicopter. Pope Benedict XVI prays in solitude for his life partner. This could be the first, and last time they ever see each other. Pope Francis belongs to the world, now.

This entry was posted in LGBT, Religion, Supreme Court and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Victor_the_Crab

    Those two need to get a room together.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Norris/1597765442 Michael Norris

    “What is love for Jesus but a deep down love of another man?”

    I think it is somewhat deeper than that. What does this mean Mr. Brink, that if I am progressive socially and politically that I must also be anti-religious? You should try to be more introspective and reflective instead of sounding snarky and sarcastic. Yes, I rise in defense, sir of Pope Francis and ask you to consider the tone of what you have written. Rarely do I get offended by things I read on blogs. But I think, Mr. Brink, you went way out of your way to offend Catholics with your pointed and lame attempt at humor.

    There is no way that I am going to give the church (and that includes Catholics and evangelicals) a pass on their sins and level of stupidity. But neither am I going to disrespect them with insulting snark and shallow humor. This kind of stuff doesn’t help the progressive movement. When we act like conservatives, speaking just like them in tone and level of snark, then that makes us like them. Your writing today has the same tone and level of insipidness that any birther would be proud of.

    • mrbrink

      I note the hypocrisy, Michael.

      That love can and does exist naturally between two men, or women, or between you and Jesus is still love. The fact that there are two popes at one time is unusual, but their mutual love for Jesus is no more sacred than the love between two human beings. Who are you to diminish love?

      And if my playful tone upsets you and your defense of everything Catholic except for all the child molesting, institutional homophobia, wars, and ungodly accumulated wealth of the church while people are starving in the streets, well, you have your priorities to defend.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Norris/1597765442 Michael Norris

        You missed the point entirely–probably because of your defensiveness. If you want to talk about issues–then do it. But when you sound insulting and insipid, then what is the difference between you and Shaun Hannity?

        And I did not diminish love–nor did I make it an issue. I think you will find that my priorities to a large degree mirror yours. What troubles me is that you took your insults directly to Pope Francis–which makes you sound just like them! You say playful–I say sounds like a birther.

        Did you notice you began your response to me with an insult? Hypocrisy indeed. May I suggest you read some of my prior postings. No hypocrisy here.

        • priscianusjr

          I agree. It’s gratuitously offensive. Doesn’t help anybody.

        • mrbrink

          No. You missed the point entirely, Michael. It’s called, “Knee-jerk reaction.” You mistake some of my sincerity for snark, too. For example, when I say, Pope Francis “belongs to the world, now”– and link to a story about how that is a very real concept, I’m speaking to a huge transition for the church– that “a people’s pope” is being whisked away to the people who need him; who still need the church. I like Pope Francis and I believe he could be a closet reformer, but don’t fool yourself. Church is big business, as I noted last week, and they’ve got billions of reasons why they need to keep the unwashed faithful faithful.

          The hypocrisy, my good man, is the lack of acknowledgement of how these two men, as leaders of the Catholic church, who claim to know love can be so blind to this universal love that exists, which knows no earthly or heavenly boundaries. I believe that to know Jesus is to know this universal love that exists, whether between two gay men, two women, or two sweet smelling holy men in fancy clothes doing brunch.

          You have no idea what my religious beliefs are or my relationship with God. I never insulted you, either. You’ve been hurling insults and making grand indictments regarding my character over a silly satirical love story about two holy men that ends with prayer and the endless possibilities of new beginnings. I don’t snark prayer, either, unless it’s used to “pray the gay away,” or for the destruction of any group or individual.

          I’ll leave you with this line from Sister Simone who summed it up very well when she said, “The Holy spirit is alive and well and out causing mischief.”

          Amen, brother.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Norris/1597765442 Michael Norris

            I have not “hurled” one insult. Your defensiveness is getting in the way again. However, I didn’t miss the point. I stated clearly that your tone, language, and sarcasm was clear. And yes, I think it is clear what your religious beliefs are. That obviousness not withstanding, my point remains the same: your brand of insipid snark when insulting the pope is no different than any birther insulting the president. We progressives rant and rave about that crap all the time. They can’t state the issues–they won’t dialogue–they just insult. And whether you like it or not, your tone, language, and attitude towards a man you know nothing about was just plain insulting. Take it or leave it brother. And for the record, I have great respect and regard for Sister Simone. If you an I share that respect, then maybe there is still hope for dialogue. Shalom.

          • mrbrink

            Ha. Okay, Michael. Calling me defensive must make you offensive? but I’m also, according to you who rises above insults, to highlight your repetitive variations of the following: shallow, insipid and insipidness, lame, like any proud Birther, like S(ean)haun Hannity– isn’t at all insulting. What’s funny to me, though, for starters, is that you don’t even realize, as you projected on to me: “your tone, language, and attitude towards a man you know nothing about was just plain insulting.” Thank you for saying it. Someone had to.

            Please don’t tell the pope I semi-satirized his intimate meeting with the other pope to make a larger point about the hypocrisy of the church; universal love and acceptance. Jesus may never forgive me.

            But I’m fascinated by your self-righteous contempt for the idea that the two popes could be intimate, accepting and loving to each other while at the same time still holding the line on condemnation of LGBT people who are intimate, accepting and loving to each other.

            Someone could use a lesson in love. Maybe we all could, huh?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Norris/1597765442 Michael Norris

            You are very thin skinned aren’t you? Maybe blog writing isn’t your gig. I think I will just stay off of here on Sundays.

          • mrbrink

            Ha. No, Michael, I’m not easily offended. You’re the only one here demonstrating thin skin, and on behalf of someone you don’t even know, no less. You started a little holy war here in the comment section because you obviously have issues with taboo topics and anyone who might force you to clutch your pearls and faint at the idea of two popes making romantically sweet love. I don’t have a problem with taboo topics. I do have a problem with your poor logic and even poorer arguments to attack said taboo topic.

            You said: “There is no way that I am going to give the church (and that includes Catholics and evangelicals) a pass on their sins and level of stupidity. But neither am I going to disrespect them with insulting snark and shallow humor.”

            By all means, please explain their sins and “level of stupidity,” a word I didn’t even use. You won’t give them a “pass on their sins and level of stupidity,” but I guess by calling whole swaths of religious followers sinful and stupid, you have risen above insults, disrespect, and shallow humor?

            You’re a talking contradiction. How you fail to see how calling people stupid and sinful is not disrespectful is the biggest pile of cognitive dissonance in this whole discussion.

            I’m sure you deal with those sins and level of stupidity in much more progressive ways. But I’ll give you a hint: calling people sinful and stupid and claiming you hold their feet to the fire with progressive ideals is an unconvincing argument considering you’re here disrespecting me for basically calling them sinful and stupid in not so many clever words.

            You don’t know the pope, You have never met him. What’s in it for you? Protecting the good name of tax-exempt homophobia?

            DC noted: “Stephen Colbert – “Christianity is the best way to cure gayness—just get on your knees, take a swig of wine, and accept the body of a man into your mouth.””

            That’s pretty much what I was going for. I didn’t turn the post into an Aristocrats joke, but I could have. And maybe that would have offended you even more, I don’t care. I kept it clean, and *love* was the real star of the story.

            But I expect you to avoid Stephen Colbert as well, seeing how Christians making fun of their own religion and religious leaders really bothers you.

            The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week that could uphold discrimination– DOMA and Prop 8– based on the religious teachings of your well-dressed, man-loving religion. I think it’s important to remember what this is all about. If the progressive stance requires me to say nice things about organized religion and the two popes, then I guess I’m just an asshole.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Stephen Colbert – “Christianity is the best way to cure gayness—just get on your knees, take a swig of wine, and accept the body of a man into your mouth.”

  • 1933john

    Just a couple of old white guys wearing beanies and neither is Zig-Zagowitz.
    Nothing wrong with that.

  • http://oakcreekforum.blogspot.com/ OneFly

    Hurt feelings. This writer was being way too nice for the likes of these two fucks.

    • http://twitter.com/siri2k siri

      LOL. NO CHIT, OneFly~!!!!
      siri