Jesus: "The Original Hipster"

The priest in this interview with the Huffington Post really knocks it out of the park.

The diocese of Brooklyn has developed a new ad campaign that has people talking. In as series of ads, they try to reach young adults who aren't coming to church. They are releasing ads specifically aimed at parents, joggers, and people of different ethnicities. And hipsters? The ad campaign is called "All faces. Everyday understanding" and it is doing it's job at getting people's attention.

So, what do you think about this ad campaign? Is it appropriate to talk about Jesus like this? Was Jesus really a hipster?

I think that this campaign is absolutely brilliant in that it is getting everyone talking, especially the very group the Church is looking for. The Huffington Post is talking about it. Gawker is talking about it. Salon is talking about it. The Observer is covering it. Opposing Viewpoints is covering it. Yeah, not all of the reviews are positive, but it's got their attention.

It is also appropriating a meme that has been used and abused for years.

I'm all for anyone taking back something that is used to mock them and twisting it into their own. Way to stick it to...well...whoever you're sticking it to.

The priest in the above video makes the valid point that every culture that Christianity has come in contact with has made Christ into their own image. What ever is considered beautiful and good in your culture, you apply rightly or wrongly to Christ. That's the reason why this Middle-Eastern man is often depicted here in the west as a good looking Caucasian with blue eyes.

 At least the Bible miniseries gave him brown eyes

But, just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right. So, is it right? Jesus came into our world as a Middle Eastern Jew around the year 4 BCE. Is it okay to depict him as anything else? Well, unlike St. Paul, we don't have a detailed description of what Jesus looked like. That's not any excuse. Forensic scientists have been trying to work around that. And this "hipster" label isn't really talking about His looks anyway. It's about His beliefs and we have plenty of literature and 2000 years of Tradition to tell us about those.

Urban Dictionary defines "hipster" as:

Hipsters are a subculture of men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking, counter-culture, progressive politics, an appreciation of art and indie-rock, creativity, intelligence, and witty banter...Hipsters reject the culturally-ignorant attitudes of mainstream consumers, and are often be seen wearing vintage and thrift store inspired fashions, tight-fitting jeans, old-school sneakers, and sometimes thick rimmed glasses.

Jesus was certainly counter-cultural. Let's take two prime examples:

• The woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11)- An angry crowd comes to Jesus with to ask him if it is okay to stone a woman caught committing the sin of adultery. After making them stew for a moment as he wrote something on the ground, he dared that "whoever among you that is without sin can cast the first stone." This is in direct contradiction of the rules and practices of the time. Now, he doesn't let the woman go scot-free, he tells her to sin no more. But he does save her life. And notice something else about the story. It's only the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery. The last time I checked: it takes two people to have sex. Where was the man? I like to think that this played a role in Jesus' judgment of the case.

• The question of divorce (Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12)- Jesus is asked if divorce is permissible. Jesus says, essentially, that it shouldn't be. His questioners argue that they believe it is permissible because Moses said so. Jesus responds saying that it was only because of their "hardness of heart" that God has allowed it to occur. Again, very counter-cultural and very pro-woman. The wife usually got the raw end of the deal in divorces because they were seen as their husband's property and they typically didn't have anything of their own. So women abandoned in divorce would often have to resort to begging or prostitution simply to stay alive. So, in addition to affirming that "what God has put together, let no man put asunder," he's also, once again, protecting women.

Now we wade into the murky waters of progressivism. As I have argued before, I truly Catholic outlook would not jive with either the Republicans or the Democrats. I don't think Jesus would fully support either one.

Like our new Pope, Jesus seems to have been a doctrinal hard-ass who loved the underdog and the outcast. If you don't believe me, see his teaching on divorce above. His questioners bring up Moses, Jesus points them all to Genesis. Jesus is trying to point them all to the very beginning, how God made everything before any man, even the venerable Moses, had any say. You can't get more conservative than that.

That seems kind of counter-cultural in and of itself. Going down the street, you see people wearing their identities on their tee-shirts. The United States is becoming ever more divided into our respective camps. People proudly announce their labels from the rooftops. To refuse to be put into a box is against the norm.

While Jesus might not have necessarily agreed with all that the current progressive movement stands for, he was completely counter-cultural.

• He was completely against hyper-consumerism (Matthew 21:12-13).

• He followed God regardless of anything people said (Mark 12:14-17).

• He would feel at home with the bohemians (Luke 9:58).

• Jesus made ironic statements and used sarcasm (examples include Matthew 19:23-26 [camel through eye of needle], Matthew 7:3 [plank in your own eye], John 1:46-47 [Jesus being snarky to Nathanael], and Luke 14:16-24 [the really lame excuses the wedding fest guests give for not showing up]).  

Yeah, I think Jesus could be considered a "hipster" as long as you are lenient on your definition of "progressive." 

 

Social Justice Catholic vs. Pro-life Catholic: A False Dichotomy

I even fell into it myself. We were having a discussion yesterday in my Bible study about everything that was wrong in the Church and the new Pope. I said, "Church leaders in the southern hemisphere tend to be more involved in social justice issues tempered with being very socially conservative."

I almost smacked myself.

Source

It drives me nuts when other people do it. I hate it when comparisons are made between the social justice Catholics and the orthodox Catholics. As if you have to be one or the other, you can't be both. But isn't real Catholicism both? If one really understood the Church and tried to live out her teachings, you'd have to be both.

Let me illustrate using our new Pope:

And the Pope on the bus goes...

When Pope Francis was the Archbishop in Buenos Aires, he refused to live in the Bishop's palace. He lived in an ordinary apartment with an elderly Bishop that he helped take care of. I imagine this like the 65.7 million caregivers in the US looking out for older family members. He used public transportation instead of a chauffeur. He took the Jesuit vow of poverty seriously.

Pope Francis has said that abortion of a child conceived in the rape of a mentally handicapped woman is wrong. Rape? Mentally handicapped? While what he said is absolutely correct, the hypothetical situation he used is one of the worst I could think of. This simply illustrates his orthodoxy in pro-life matters.

The same lips that made that statement also chastised priests for refusing to baptize children born out-of-wedlock. He said essentially that these women sacrificed bringing these unplanned children into the world; They should not have to go door to door to find a priest willing to baptize the child.

One of the biggest pro-choice complaints is that pro-lifers seem to be willing to go to the ends of the earth to protect the child in the womb but won't lift a finger to help a child already born. This Pope, chosen from the ends of the world, clearly cares for children born and unborn and has an understanding of what women with unplanned pregnancies go through.

So, here we go: A Pope that talks the talk and walks the walk, going above and beyond the call of duty to truly live out the Gospel in his everyday life. The more I learn about him, the more I think he is exactly what the Church today needs. A perfect synthesis of the "social justice Catholic" and the "pro-life Catholic." The Cardinals seem to have done a wonderful job. And, note to reader: smack me if you ever hear me pit these two against each other ever again.

And the Conclave begins!

I figure since I am Catholic I should write something about the conclave.

Today it begins. I just want it over because I'm already sick and tired of the stupidity of the secular press. No, the pope can't overturn the Church's teachings on abortion, women in the priesthood, homosexuality, priestly celibacy or any of your other complaints. It doesn't work that way. Idiots.

I'm hoping for a Pope from the southern hemisphere in order to reflect the changing demographics. I'm hoping for a Pope who embraces what John L. Allen Jr. calls "affirmative orthodoxy." The world knows what the Church is against, now more than ever they need to know what the Church is for. I pray that the Cardinals are open to the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit leads them to the best man for the job.

Come Holy Spirit, Creator Blest (Veni, Creator Spiritus)

Come, Holy Spirit, Creator blest,and in our souls take up Thy rest;come with Thy grace and heavenly aidto fill the hearts which Thou hast made. O comforter, to Thee we cry,O heavenly gift of God Most High,O fount of life and fire of love,and sweet anointing from above. 

Thou in Thy sevenfold gifts are known;Thou, finger of God's hand we own;Thou, promise of the Father, ThouWho dost the tongue with power imbue. 

Kindle our sense from above,and make our hearts o'erflow with love;with patience firm and virtue highthe weakness of our flesh supply.

 Far from us drive the foe we dread,and grant us Thy peace instead;so shall we not, with Thee for guide,turn from the path of life aside. 

Oh, may Thy grace on us bestowthe Father and the Son to know;and Thee, through endless times confessed,of both the eternal Spirit blest.

 Now to the Father and the Son,Who rose from death, be glory given,with Thou, O Holy Comforter,henceforth by all in earth and heaven. Amen.

The Catholic Imagination: A Review

"Catholics live in an enchanted world."

The Ecstasy of St. Teresa by Bernini

This sentence is repeated many times in The Catholic Imagination by Andrew Greeley. Overall, I would say he's entirely right. Reading this book helped me to understand my fallen away brethren better as I saw how the "Catholic" worldview is so pervasive, they still have it no matter what their relationship is with the Church.

Catholics (and perhaps some of the more mainstream Protestants) have a sacramental worldview. The Sacraments, as the good ole Baltimore Catechism tells us, is an "outward sign of an inward grace." It is a real, physical sign of God's love and care for His people. I know for me, I cannot help but expand this understanding of life out the church doors. Seeing the "magic" (very poor word choice, but bear with me) at the altar, I cannot help but see the "magic" in my every day life.

Source, although I would not recommend the site.

And I see this overall view still in my friends who were raised Catholic and no longer identify themselves as Catholic. They may no longer participate in the sacraments, but they do have a sense of God's presence among them. They still have a passion for social justice.

Another major point that Greeley wanted to make that I agreed with is the Catholic sense of community although I would disagree vehemently with his argument that the Church has not lost it's sense of community. I do see among my Catholic and ex-Catholic friends a hunger for community. I think we are all hungering for community in this individualistic world, but I see that hunger more readily in the Catholics I know. But, even the Church, at least all of the parishes I've belonged to, has lost that sense of community entirely. Like everything else in the world, the Church in the United States has been victimized by the post-modern sense of individuality. No one is a "joiner" anymore and those who do join tend not to show up because we all have something better to do.

Aside from the lack of community, the only other thing I would argue with him about is his conclusions in regards to sexual ethics and gay rights. In some parts of the book, he does differentiate between the nominally Catholic and the active Catholic. I do not feel that he does that nearly enough. The Catholic Church, as an institution that many are born into, houses a whole variety of people. With this variety, you will meet people who agree with the teachings of the Church, people who reject practically everything that the Church says, and every thing in-between.

The Catholic imagination in literature

In this book, Greeley argues that a pro-birth control, pro-gay marriage worldview dovetails well with the overall "Catholic imagination" that he describes. In a sense, he argues that being pro-birth control and pro-gay marriage is more "Catholic" than the opposite views. He says that the "Catholic imagination" propels Catholics to see the world holistically and to value the dignity of all people above all other factors. So, it would stand to reason, that the "Catholic imagination" would lead one to be against discrimination against gays and for anything that helps the poor and disenfranchised.

In this argument he clearly does not understand the Catholic Church's teachings on gay marriage and birth control. On the topic of gay marriage, the Church is not against it because we want to discriminate against gays. The Church is against it because we want to defend marriage as an institution and the family as the fundamental unit of society. So, as marriage is for the creation of a family and children, the Church is against marriage being used for anything else. It is a similar issue with birth control. The Church is not against birth control because we want to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. The Church is against birth control because we are for the dignity of the human person, including the woman in question. So it does not go against the "Catholic imagination" to be anti-birth control or gay marriage.

Stay tuned for my feminist rant against birth control. No, that wasn't a typo.

That said, however, I think he's on to something with the general idea of the "Catholic imagination." It reminds me of a chaplaincy visit I had a year ago. The patient had been raised in a devout Catholic household, but he had fallen away after being confused by Vatican II. He had dedicated his life to helping the mentally handicapped live normal lives. His work with them was all he wanted to talk about during our visit. In a sense, "helping the mentally handicapped" was his "religion." And I could hardly think of a more "Catholic" alternative religion, to recognize the dignity and empower those who society deems powerless.

I would recommend this book to anyone seeking to understand the Catholic worldview as Greeley makes a number of very good observations. BUT, please, do take some things with a grain of salt, especially when he talks about sexuality.  

Greeley argues that Springsteen uses his Catholic imagination

Vatican vs. "Call to disobediance"

I feel this is a good follow-up to my post about Cardinal Dolan because this is a clear display of talking past each other, not to each other in the Church.

So, here's the story:

These priests in Austria sign a petition saying they want to see the following changes in the Church:

1. In every liturgy they will include a petition for church reform.
2. They will not deny Communion to faithful of good will, especially remarried people, members of other Christian churches, and in some cases those who have officially left the Catholic Church.
3. As much as possible they will avoid celebrating multiple times on Sundays and feastdays, and avoid scheduling circuit rider priests unknown to the community. A locally-planned Liturgy of the Word is preferable.
4. They will use the term “Priestless Eucharistic Celebration” for a Liturgy of the Word with distribution of Communion. This is how the Sunday Mass obligation is fulfilled when priests are in short supply.
5. They will ignore the prohibition of preaching by competently trained laity, including female religion teachers. In difficult times, the Word of God must be proclaimed.
6. They will advocate that every parish has a presiding leader – man or woman, married or unmarried, full-time or part time. Rather than consolidating parishes, they call for a new image of the priest.
7. They will take every opportunity to speak up publicly for the admission of women and married people to the priesthood. These would be welcome colleagues in ministry.

Now, like Luther in his 95 Theses, these guys bring up some valid concerns, but you'd never know it because they are so weighed down with a lot of ideas that they know will never happen in the Church (at least they should know it, if they know anything about how the Church works and what the Church teaches).

For example: Clearly these guys are concerned about the priest shortage and the impact of the shortage on the community. They don't like seeing parishes consolidated (see 6 above) and they hate seeing priests preach to parishes they've never even met (see 3 above). I think both of those are valid concerns and I share them. But, the solution isn't married clergy (some of your most conservative dioceses have the most vocations) and we've already had an arguably infallible statement that women can't be priests (and I don't feel prejudiced against).

I share their concern about closed communion. It broke my heart that my parents couldn't receive communion at my wedding. But, again, the Church has good reasons. The Eucharist, in addition to being the Body and Blood of Christ, is also a sign of unity. If you are not in unity, you shouldn't receive it. It's even in the Bible, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Corinthians 11:29) Now, you may argue that the passage is talking about someone eating knowing that themselves are unworthy, not someone else deeming them unworthy, but I would say that is begging the question. And, in the situation of my wedding, my mother didn't mind it at all. In fact, she refused to even be blessed, because "it's not my religion."

Preaching is very important. I love preaching. I'm discerning a vocation as a Lay Dominican for crying out loud. And laity can preach (I'm preaching right now), just not in the Mass.

This issue is only compounded by the rhetoric on both sides.

On the left: Church leadership is "paternalistic" and "unyielding." This is clearly a power-play, with the Magisterium scared they'll lose. The Church is an "absolutist monarchy" and is closed to all reform. The Pope is intolerant of all dissent. Priests seem to not care about the situation.

Sources: The Vienna Review, The New York Times, Women Priests, Reuters, and Pfarrer-Initiative (which is the organization that authored the document).

On the right: These priests want to give communion to "adulterers" (that is the quote that inspired this post, calling names is not going to fix the divorce crisis!). They are "pedophiles." They are leading their flocks to damnation. They are "heretics" (I would argue that 7 above could be classified as heresy and these priests apparently do not understand what the Church means by priesthood) They are doing the work of the devil.

Sources: Mundabor's Blog, Fr. Z, E F Pastoremeritus, and The Eponymous Flower (1 and 2).

The Pope is not a soulless dictator. He is the leader of the worldwide Church that is also one of the oldest continuously existing organizations in the world. These priests are not evil. I have seen the devil and these guys are not it. Let's just get those two points out in the open right away. Everyone at the table is beautiful and loved in God's sight.

I liked a post I saw on Rorate Caeli. Benedict XVI seems to know what I'm getting at. The disobedience of these priests seems to be misguided even though their hearts seem to be in the right place. The Vatican, on the other hand, needs to be open to change, as long as that change does not contradict Scripture or Tradition. The changes that these priests are calling for contradicts both Scripture and Tradition, but the problems they seek to resolve do need to be addressed. Name-calling and assuming each others motivations is not going to solve anything.

There is room in the Church for the left and the right as long as both sides are open to dialog. These sides of the Church could be complimentary if we let them. The left can challenge while the right keeps us from careening off the path. The left can open a window to let the air in while the right keeps the building from blowing away.

Meaningful disclaimer: I am, surprise-surprise, a liberal. My lovely husband is a conservative. We are both faithful Catholics who are very involved in our parish. If we can run a household, raise a child, and take communion (and often give communion, we're both Eucharistic ministers) at the same Mass, the right and the left in the Church can be civil. My husband and I have been together for going on 6 years and we will be buried together, despite the fact I'm a registered Democrat and he's a registered Republican. If we can do it, anyone can.

                 

10 Reasons to LOVE Archbishop Timothy Dolan

I just got done reading A People of Hope: Archbishop Timothy Dolan in conversation with John L. Allen Jr. I finished it in four days which is a remarkable feat for me with a 7-month-old son and it is a testament to the readability and the entertainment value of this book. It was very informative in relation to the state of the Church and the background and belief system of Cardinal Dolan. Allen asked some very tough questions and got some very thoughtful answers. I came away from this book a new Cardinal Dolan fan. This is why:

10. "I enjoy the novels of Dean Koontz..." No one could be bad who likes a Dean Koontz novel. And yes, Koontz is deeply Catholic.

 
9. In regards to the misperception that the Church is only the men in big hats (i.e. Bishops): "One of the things I've said for a long time is that we need a resurrected sense of apologetics. We Catholics sometimes are far too timid. We don't know how to respond when people throw out these silly, caustic remarks about the Church. We might just smile instead of rising up to say, 'Enough of that. That's simply not accurate.' Somebody sooner or later has got to blow the whistle on this."

8. On the imperfections of the Church: "We shouldn't be afraid to show off the wounds of the Church to the world, and we should boast that the wounds remind us of the healer."

7. On dialogue inside and outside the Church: "One guy who I think has reinvigorated dialogue is Benedict XVI, constantly saying that true, respectful dialogue starts with a clear understanding of the truth that you bring to the conversation. We insult our partner, our respected, cherished partner in dialogue, if we feel that they are expecting us to soft-pedal the truth."

6. In regards to the visitation to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious: "Had anybody asked me, which they didn't, I would have advised against it. Do I think it's justified, that there are legitimate worries about women religious? You bet I do. But should we do it? Probably not, at least not in this way, because the danger is that it may be seen as something heavy-handed and punitive, and therefore it risks being counterproductive."

 
5. He says that in the case of a gay couple wanting to put their child in Catholic school that he sees no reason why they can't. Of course, the child is welcome in the school as long as the parents understand that they are bringing their child into an atmosphere where the parents' lifestyle will be brought to question. No one is going to officially attack the couple for their lifestyle, but the child will, for example, learn in their Religion class that the Church disagrees with it.

4. "Here's the pitch:Let me introduce you to what I think is one of the more consoling, challenging ways to know, love, and serve Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the beginning and the end--who is, in the words of John Paul II, the answer to the question posed by every human life. Come on in, because this is the best way to do it. I don't know about you, brother or sister, but if you're like me, you need a lot of help, and I'll tell you where you can find it. Let's just say that we're in it together. If you're struggling down a path trying to get to a goal that you're not sure about, it's a heck of a lot better if you find two or three others on the same trail. They may have as many flaws as you, and they may not have the exact map either, but it's sure a lot better to be with some people trying their best to get to the same place. When we pool our talents and resources, we're probably going to be able to get there better. That's the mystery, the invitation, of the Church that I think we've got to pose."   

3. In regards to people who disagree with the Church's teaching on birth control: "If what you're asking is, would I be one of those who's quick in telling people that they're out of the Church? No, I would not, and I wouldn't want to be. People who are struggling to understand, accept, and live the teachings of Jesus and his church need the Church more than anybody."

2.In regards to denying communion to pro-choice politicians: "I always say that I don't know why this topic only seems to come up with regard to abortion, and I don't know why it's only directed at politicians"

1. AFFIRMATIVE ORTHODOXY!!!!!
"Look at our literature, and drama, and sculpture, and art, and liturgy, and poetry, and everything that's great in the Catholic worldview. The Catholic Church affirms, strengthens, expands what's most noble, most beautiful, most sacred, in the human project. That's what affirmative orthodoxy means to me. I like to quote a line from Father Robert Barron, that they Church only says no to another no, and two no's make a yes. It's only when the yes of humanity is threatened that they Church will say no, to protect the yes."

In a phrase: I like Cardinal Dolan because he stands up for his beliefs without being intolerant or stupid about it. You will never get anyone to understand your point of view if you don't respectfully talk to them. I could see people not liking him because he seems to be "all bark and no bite," but I would counter that argument by saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

 

A Catholic analysis of the Russell Brand interview with Westboro Baptist Church members

Above is a 11 minute video of an interview that British comedian Russell Brand did on his show with members of the Westboro Baptist Church. For those who don't know, Russell Brand is quite the eccentric bad boy. He has had a lot of struggles with the law and drugs. He credits his practice of meditation in helping him to conquer his various demons. The Westboro Baptist Church, on the other hand, have made a name for themselves protesting at military funerals saying that God is letting our men and women in uniform be killed because our country is too tolerant of homosexuality. Needless to say, Brand and his audience vehemently disagree with Westboro's views. In this interview, the two parties are surprisingly respectful of one another. Of course, as a religion and ethics nerd, I found the whole thing facinating and I want to look at Brand's and the Westboro Baptist views through Roman Catholic eyes.

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!       Now, let's get our geek on!

 From a Catholic perspective there are major holes and major truth in both of these positions. There are many ways I can tackle this. The one way I have decided upon is topical. The points I want to make fall into three categories: The Bible, the nature of sin, and the nature of love.

Disclaimer: This analysis is based solely on the interview linked above. Any other statements made by either the Westboro Baptist Church or Brand have not been taken into account.

The Bible

I would say that Brand's understanding of Scripture is closest to the Catholic understanding, but not in anyway completely in line.

Close, but no cigar

The Westboro Baptist Church seems to be strong supporters in the Reformation idea of sola scriptura. That means that for them, the Bible is the one and only authority when it comes to knowing God's will and that the Bible is to be taken literally.

In the Catholic faith, we would have to agree with Brand's statement at 5:05 that "The Holy Spirit doesn't have a pen." Scripture is certainly inspired by God, but it was written by man. We would take it a step further, though, than Brand does when he says that the Bible is only meant to point us toward the one God who is Love. We don't believe that the Bible is merely a pointer. The Bible does also contain Truth. But to get the fullness of God's Truth, as Catholics, we believe that you need to take both Scripture and Tradition into account. Scripture and Tradition are used as a kind of checks and balances. Nothing in either one can contradict the other and they are both valid tools in the search for Truth.

The Nature of Sin

In the case of sin, the Westboro Baptist Church would be closer than Brand in the Catholic understanding. However, in their understanding of God as seemingly hateful, they are very, very far off the mark.

Which is ironically, exactly what "sin" means

 The phrase "love the sinner, but hate the sin" is way, way older than these guys think (see 6:52). It actually comes from St. Augustine. Yup, Billy Graham nor Gandhi thought it up. A Catholic saint did. And, actually, it's a pretty good summary of the Catholic perspective on homosexuality.

Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church does not hate gays. What some people in the Church (such as Archbishop Dolan, who I will be writing about later) have trouble with is this: Why do some people seem to limit their identity to their sexual orientation? You are so much more, pardon my crudity, than who you have sex with! You are a beloved child of God. God knitted you in your mother's womb. God sent His only Son to die for you. God is with you every second of every day, especially in the Eucharist! We would argue that everyone's main identity, it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, white, black, tall, short, or purple, everyone's main identity is found only in God!

Our issue with homosexuality is with the act itself. God created our bodies. God basically created sex. We as Catholics feel that one of the main purposes of sex is procreation. God made us to make and raise children in a loving, married family. Anything that falls short of this goal, any sexual act that does not at least contain the possibility of leading to new life, is missing the mark, is "sin." We believe that homosexual activities are unbecoming of a beautiful child of God. That is something that we would agree with the Westboro Baptist Church about. We completely disagree with their belief that God hates gays, but we do agree with their belief that homosexual behavior is sinful.

The Nature of Love

Similarly, we would agree with Brand's contention that God's primary identity is Love, but we do not agree that this "love" means that anything short of murder is acceptable. As stated by the Westboro members in 1:35, it is sometimes more loving to point out the sins in another person than to accept all of that person's actions. One of our purposes in this life is to help one another get closer to God and ultimately to Heaven. That sometimes means showing some tough love. Now, I'm sure that very few Catholics would agree that protesting at a military funeral is an appropriate display of tough love. But, going on a talk show to spread your Truth might be.

God definitely does stand for tolerance, love and beauty as eloquently expressed by Brand at 4:14, but God's "tolerance" is not "tolerance" as it is currently used in every day speak in the US. "Tolerance" is currently defined as "a fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those who differ from you." (italics added) God loves the sinners. God loves the sinners deeply, passionately, madly, and thoroughly. (Remember the "lost" parables.) But God doesn't love the sin. God hates the sin for bringing dishonor to and ensnaring the beloved sinner.

"For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death."- Romans 8:2

God isn't tolerant in the way we mean tolerant. God is Love, but because God is Love, He hates all that does harm to and blemishes the beloved. The Church would agree with Brand that Love, not hate, is the primary message of God. But we feel precisely because the main message is love, God hates sin all the more because it goes against His love.

I feel that it is very telling of Brand's perspective on homosexuality that he almost implicitly links homosexuality with the love between a short, interracial couple (around 7:21). He clearly believes that homosexuality is something that you're born with that you have no control over. He feels that just as interracial couples had to fight long and hard against prejudice, so must gay couples; that interracial dating is on the exact same moral plane as homosexual dating.

First legally married interracial couple in Louisiana, married in a Catholic Church

The Church recognizes that a homosexual orientation can't be fixed, that people are born with it and that is part of who they are. But just as unmarried people, married people where one of the spouses cannot have sex, and religious people are all called to celibacy, gays are as well. The Church would not put interracial marriage and gay marriage on the same moral ground. In fact, the Catholic Church was one of the first (if not the first) church to recognize interracial marriage (We even have a martyr for the cause).

In Conclusion

Neither Russell Brand nor the Westboro Baptist Church are in complete agreement with the Catholic Church on this issue (not that I think either of them would care). But, I hope that I have used this interview to make some sense out of what the Church does believe and to provide some compare and contrast to see the Church through a spiritual lens (Brand) and a fundamentalist lens (Westboro).

God is Love. He does love the sinner, but hate the sin. And the Church does have some reasons to think that homosexual acts are sinful. That seems like a good summary.