To Be (Ser) or To Be (Estar)

The other day I got a call from my son Political Sphere, on his way home from work (a summer internship clerking with a county judge in a small county closer to Dallas than to Houston). He has an hour-plus, mostly rural, commute, so sometimes he sets the phone on hands-free and we chat. He is working on an upcoming guest post, maybe two-parts—a legal analysis of the Windsor case (recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA). And so, slightly related to that as conversations go, we talked about the Pope’s comments in Brazil over the weekend.

The Pope did not announce any new policy or doctrine, but his candid style seems to get media thinking they’re hearing something new. He said that people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless seek to obey God’s law will be treated the same as anyone else seeking to obey God’s law. The quote that got the attention was, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” It was in response to a question asked during a casual press conference regarding whether there is a “gay lobby” at the Vatican, which he declined to acknowledge.

He reiterated the longstanding policy that homosexuality is a sin, and that same-sex attraction cannot be acted upon. But he separates out “people who are gay” from “people who struggle same-sex attraction.”

I’m thinking the difference is clarified by a little Spanish grammar lesson, so I will insert that here. The verb “ser” means “to be,” permanently: he is tall; she is Argentinian. The verb “estar” means “to be” in a temporary state: he is hungry; she is thrilled—or “She is (está) white as a ghost from fear” rather than “She is (es) white, with ancestors from Finland.”

"To Be or Not To Be"--Shakespeare
photo from here

The Pope seems to have a pastoring, shepherding instinct to seek out those who are (están) dealing with any human frailty, including same-sex attraction. When dealing with a behavior that may or may not be engaged in, one doesn’t say those people are (son) homosexual—a way of being at all times regardless of behavior choices. So, while his tone seems to meet the approval of the press, he simply restated the Catholic position, while subtly pointing out that “lobbying” for homosexuality or anything else at the Vatican, with the hope of changing God’s mind on whether something is sinful, is a waste of time.

So, back to the conversation with Political Sphere. He mentioned a quote by Desmond Tutu, also from this weekend, saying, “I would not go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would rather go to the other place.” The assumption here is that, because God makes some people “be” (ser) a certain way, God should be forced to accept behavior from them that He would not accept from someone He had not made to “be” that way. I’m thinking that someone bold enough to try to enforce such pronouncements on God is quite likely choosing to go to “the other place.”

So we were talking about the uselessness of making the assumption that some people can’t control their particular behaviors, and therefore we as a society need to embrace those people along with their behaviors and simply stop allowing those behaviors to be called wrong. And we came up with a string of analogies.

He said, “I don’t want the world to be gluttonophobic. I may someday come to control my urges, but in the meantime, the world has to accept that I must eat all I want.” Have I mentioned that Political Sphere is a giant? He has over 200 pounds of lean body mass—which requires a fair amount of sustenance, but is not the problem. It is the non-lean body mass that is the issue, and he would probably need to lose a notable amount to fit the Superman profile. (As his mother, I still think he’s adorable in a very large teddy bear kind of way, but I do want him to live a long and healthy life.) Does he eat too much? Maybe, but who has the right to judge? Applying the Desmond Tutu logic, people who “are” gluttons should be treated exactly the same way as “non-gluttons,” without any judgment of their behavior, because it’s right for them; it’s who they “are.”

I had written a similar analogy using kleptomania (which I’m realizing right now is not included in the Defense of Marriage collection—maybe I’ll print it here in the future on a quiet day). Political Sphere remembered that the specific point of that piece was the absurdity of the way the APA removed same-sex attraction from its list of mental disorders. But his point simply relates to the absurdity of accepting any behavior a person doesn’t have control over, which could become a long and sordid list.

And then we talked about the big news of the day in court. A certain attorney showed up at court Monday morning (in the morning!) drunk. And in his inebriated state he failed to recall that he was carrying his gun with him—into the courthouse. He was arrested and by now is on his way to rehab. The case scheduled that day, along with all his cases, will be turned over to other attorneys, causing a fair amount of upheaval. The best case scenario for this man is the possibility of deferred adjudication on the drunk and disorderly conduct charge, depending on his success in rehab. But that might not be possible because of the felony charge of carrying a gun into a place where it was not allowed. (I’m uncertain whether there was a screening at the door, as in the downtown courthouse where I’ve served as a juror, or whether he got in, was found to be drunk, and the gun was found on him after that point.) It may be that the felony charge will prevent him from ever practicing law again. He’s a prominent person in the small-town community, so this likely made the local nightly news and will show up in a state bar journal. He has caused himself some serious harm.

But is this his fault? As Political Sphere pointed out, the man is alcoholic (using the word “ser”), so he can’t help it. He has the urge to drink alcohol, and who are we to judge whether that’s wrong for someone who is an alcoholic person? Should we not have different definitions of wrong behavior for people who are alcoholics? Their behavior can’t be expected to be the same as someone who is not an alcoholic, after all. So, for alcoholic lawyers, they should be accepted in court drunk on a Monday morning. And as for the gun carrying, no one really thinks he intended to cause harm with it; it was just a result of alcohol-caused stupidity, which is totally different for someone who is alcoholic than for someone who is not. As Bill Clinton would say, “It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.”

Hitting Bottom

A few years ago I had a rather ridiculous accident that has provided me much metaphorical use. The short version is that I have finally been forced to give up any lifelong dream of becoming a firefighter.

It was a homeschooling lobby day at the state capitol—one of the best field trips ever. My daughter had a friend who lived near Austin, where we were having dinner before the three-hour drive home. The house happened to have a fireman’s pole, just for fun. Sort of like the Jonas Brothers on their TV show at the time. I was curious to see it, but I had pictured looking at it from the bottom. Instead, I ended up following the young people up the stairs to see it from above.

I had no interest in using the thing, even when the kids all tried it and landed quite safely below. But my daughter incorrectly assumed I needed the "fun and exciting" experience. I was not firm enough. I explained reasons I felt it was not safe for me to do it—and they kept addressing my concerns, one by one. So, while I don’t know if you could call it peer pressure, since I was an adult and should have known better, I gave in and tried sliding down.

As my husband said later, “You failed to do the math relating to upper body strength versus lower body weight.” True, but probably could have gone without being said to a suffering wife. I went down hard, about as fast as if I had just fallen. I knew immediately I’d hurt my ankle. But at first (and for a couple of weeks) we thought it was probably just a bad sprain. It was swollen and purple right away. I felt more than just a little stupid for having done such a thing when I should have known better. In my defense, I’m the first person, including adults, to have been injured on this fireman’s pole, and they had had parties with dozens of people, young and old, trying it out. I’m just special that way.

The thing is, I knew immediately that I’d made a really bad decision. I even said to my daughter, “I know what repentance is all about; I really really wish I had never done this stupid thing.” And here’s another thing I know about myself: I learn fairly quickly from experience. I even learn from other people’s experience, and from reading or other forms of literature. I am not someone who needs to learn the hard way.

Nevertheless, I had a walking cast for two weeks, when the first x-ray showed nothing. When it didn’t heal, I got a better x-ray with an orthopedist and learned it was broken, in the talus joint, where it was hard to see. I didn’t have to have surgery, fortunately, but I did have a cast that required elevation (and thus a need for a wheelchair) for eight weeks, followed by another five weeks with a walking boot, and several months of physical therapy. And now, almost four years later, I’m aware that there’s some minor permanent damage.

Sometimes the consequences for our actions need to be serious, even if we’re sure they are too harsh.

There are many ways this can be a metaphor for our world. But, for now, I’m thinking economics. For many of us individually, we can see that profligate spending and unmanageable debt will lead, at some point, to financial failure, possibly sudden and seriously painful. If you spend money that is unsupported by wealth, you will fall and land hard. And when you hit bottom, it might take a long time to heal. You will lose wealth-building time, an opportunity cost, in addition.

But once you realize you’ve hit bottom, when you feel the sudden sharp pain, you get very interested in taking the necessary care to bring about healing. Not everyone, apparently, has that natural reaction, however. Things are made worse when someone hits bottom and thinks, “That wasn’t so bad,” and doesn’t change behavior. Who would do that? Someone who’s drunk or otherwise mentally impaired, maybe. Someone who can’t or won’t perceive reality. In economic terms, someone perhaps drunk with the power of spending other people’s money. Someone who has never been held accountable for the reckless behavior.

The question of our time is, how do we get the monstrously insensitive “government” to stop spending money unsupported by wealth? To stop leaping off an economic cliff that has already resulted in a 5-year economic malaise including at least two credit rating downgrades?

I have seen a few people in my life who have hit bottom—well beyond what I would consider hitting bottom. But, for them, the gravitational crash isn’t hard enough to convince them to change their behavior. They somehow think, “I can endure this; it’s not that bad.” I’ve seen that happen to a loved one who went through several attempts at alcohol rehab, lost the right to drive (re-wired the car to avoid the breathalyzer), lost family, friends, jobs, health, and finally died of liver failure. Nothing ever felt like a hard enough landing to permanently change behavior. I’ve seen a friend’s child go through several years of youth rehabilitation camp, prison, loss of family, mental institution, more rehab, and using people who care about him to keep him off the street—and the result is still, “It’s not that bad; I can handle it without actually changing.”

Economically speaking, what I’m afraid of is that, what I see as already hitting bottom is considered “not that bad” by enough people that the country as a whole moves inexorably toward more pain—until things get so uncomfortable that finally people wake up and say, “Oh, now I get it; we can’t keep spending like this when we don’t have it.” The sooner the better. Repentance—turning 180 degrees to the right direction—is hard and requires possibly a fair amount of painful rehabilitation, but is very much preferable to more serious falls or death (bankruptcy or worse?), which is the ultimate bottom to hit.