JOHN PAUL AND BENEDICT: TOO CLOSE?

The following is an article by syndicated columnist and friend Miles Christain Daniels.

The Pope, His Secretary, and Gay Marriage

With all eyes, ears and cameras now on a new pope, John Paul II, with no
disrespect, is slowly becoming yesterday's news. But during the two week
media frenzy that was John Paul's life, death and burial, I was a bit
taken back by the lack of attention given to the late pope and his
relationship with Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz - the pope's private
secretary of more than forty years. After all, Dziwisz was not only one
of the pope's most trusted aides but his closest friend.

EVIL BUNNY COMMENT: WELL, MILES! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SHROUDS EVERTHING IN MYSTERY, FROM CHILD ABUSE TO THE FACT THAT THE POPE WAS DEATHLY ILL TO THE PAPAL SELECTION PROCESS. THINK MAYBE THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE?

Dziwisz slept in a bedroom next to the pope's and was with the pope
almost every waking moment. They dined together. Watched films together.

During the pope's life, Dziwisz became one of the most influential
voices in the Vatican. In death, he was at the pope's bedside and was
one of only two mentioned by name in the pope's last will and testament.

His emotional last moment with the pope was seen by millions as Dziwisz
tenderly placed a white veil over John Paul's face, his final farewell.

But in an era where tabloid-fueled guesswork makes for good ratings, I'm
baffled as to why no one dared imply the unimaginable - that the pope
and his secretary might have had a deeper relationship - not just that
of pope/secretary, friend or father-son.

Not that I personally think this is true or would ever do more than
entertain the possibility, but did this not cross the mind of Larry
King, Chris Matthews, or Brian Williams? After all, the day Monaco's
Prince Rainer was buried, Larry King was brazen enough to ask a panelist
if the prince's son, Albert, was gay. So, why not here?

And, if Dziwisz had been a faithful nun, would the media not have at
least speculated?

EVIL BUNNY COMMENT: NO, MILES, BECAUSE MOST ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS ARE FAGS AND WOULD HAVE NUN OF 'EM! AND EVEN IF JOHN PAUL WAS STRAIGHT, THE NUNS AREN'T EXACTLY WHAT YOU'D CALL "KNOCKOUTS", ARE THEY?

The reason for this potential headline "going gently into that good
night," likely has nothing to do with the worth of the story or fear of
papal disrespect, but everything to do with how most individuals,
religious or not, perceive homosexual relationships - as strictly sexual
in nature.

OR MORE LIKELY, POSSIBLE SPECULATORS REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO SINEAD O'CONNOR AFTER SHE RIPPED UP THAT PHOTO OF THE POPE ON SNL.

Working to change this perception might be the answer to the question on
the minds of gay Catholics since Pope Benedict's appointment, "What do
we do now?" It might also be the Church's answer to how it is to treat
its gay parishioners and - more timely - how it should deal with the
issue of gay marriage.

A good start might be more practical than divine -- temporarily closing
the good book and simply reexamining two accepted clinical terms:
homosexual and heterosexual. Both are similar in that they imply sexual
orientation. They are also similar in that they are each characterized
by esthetic attraction, romantic love and sexual desire. What is
different is obvious.

Although both basically mean the same, in the public sector, the images
conjured by each could not be more polarizing.

Say or print the term heterosexual and the imagery is this: man and
woman, romantic love, commitment, compatibility, marriage, children, and
- more recently -- the buzz phrase "sacred institution."

On the contrary, mention homosexual and what immediately comes to mind
is sex. And, even worse, sex between two males or two females. All other
characterizations are off the table - especially by those morally
opposed to homosexuality and - god forbid -- gay marriage.

The problem here lies both in how homosexuality is defined in the eyes
of church leaders and the fact that - by their definition -- they are
right. Homosexuality is a moral evil. After all, sex alone is not a
foundation for anything pure. By itself, sex is a selfish pleasure that
cannot sustain a relationship and taps more into an animal instinct than
an ability to love and be loved.

What Catholics and other religious leaders have failed to include in
their spiritual equation is the reality that for homosexuals, like
heterosexuals, sexual attraction constitutes only a fraction of their
sexual orientation. The remainder is, indeed, pure.

YEAH, PURE HELL! NOT SURE I AGREE WITH MILE'S LAST POINT, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. I FINGERED MYSELF DURING A COUPLE OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS. HOW ABOUT YOU?