So I was just poking around the Interwebs today, checking all of my usual news sources, when I stumbled upon a rather interesting little nugget –
Apparently, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune printed a Q&A with notoriously homophobic Twin Cities Catholic Archbishop John Nienstedt earlier this month. The topic of the article was the archbishop’s role in the campaign to pass a constitutional marriage discrimination amendment, and most of the questions were standard-issue fare for interviews like this. (Why do you believe marriage should be restricted to opposite-sex couples? Why do you believe your definition of marriage should be written into the constitution? Can a person be a faithful Catholic and still vote against the amendment? How do you answer critics who say the archdiocese should spend their money feeding people rather than fighting marriage? etc.)
But then the questions turned to the infamous anti-marriage equality DVDs that the Knights of Columbus produced and Minnesota’s Catholic bishops sent to each of the state’s 400,000 Catholic households. Nienstedt was asked the following:
In an interview with the Rev. Michael Becker, one of your friends and the rector at St. John Vianney College Seminary in St. Paul, he recalled he’d heard that you were dining at the Lexington restaurant in St. Paul and a man came into the restaurant and threw one of the church’s DVDs at you. Fr. Becker said you remained composed and that the incident speaks to the way you’ve handled intense criticism amid the marriage amendment debate. What was your response to that incident, your recollection of it? What’s been your response in general to the often heated criticism lodged your way during this debate? Do you respond to your critics?
Woah! An angry gay publicly chucked a DVD at a Catholic archbishop? I can’t believe I missed the story of such a confrontation. (I also thought that, even though I don’t endorse attacking one’s opponents in any way, for any reason, throwing something at someone with such a high profile — in a public place, no less — takes some serious chutzpah!) Nienstedt responded, “In the face of this and other criticism, I try to respond to such emotional outbursts with reason, calm and patience. My goal is to always treat others with respect, even if I don’t agree with them.”
But a man has now come forward to challenge Nienstedt’s and Becker’s account. In the latest issue of Lavender magazine, the biweekly magazine for the LGBT community in the Twin Cities, reporter John Townsend interviews Gregg Larson, who says he was the man who confronted the archbishop that night while eating dinner with his partner of 35 years. Larson claims that almost everything about the way Becker recounted the confrontation is inaccurate. He told Lavender:
“First off, I didn’t come into the restaurant. My partner and I were there before they arrived. Also, I did not throw the DVD at him. I would never have done that. In fact, nobody in the restaurant even was aware of the conversation that we had with them.”
According to Larson’s account, when he saw Nienstedt waiting near the coat check to be seated, he approached the prelate and introduced himself. Larson mentioned that his elderly mother had received a piece of “junk mail” that he wished to return (the DVD). He then told Nienstedt that he had heard rumors that the archbishop was a closeted gay man, saying that if the rumors were true, the prelate was a hypocrite.
Larson then returned to his table, but then remembered that he had the DVD in his car. He retrieved it, approached the table where Nienstedt and Becker were now seated, and informed the archbishop that rather than return it by mail, Larson decided to return it in person.
“And with that,” he told Lavender, “I broke it in half and I dropped the two pieces into the middle of the table and I took the letter and I tore it up and I put that in the middle of the table.”
Larson then brought up the rumors about Nienstedt’s alleged homosexuality for a second time. The archbishop responded, “You shouldn’t believe rumors,” to which Larson allegedly retorted, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” He continued:
“And at that point he kind of raised his hand and snarled ‘Get out!’ And I responded that his behavior was unbecoming of an archbishop and that maybe we needed an exorcist here. There was no yelling. It was a conversational level. The restaurant was full of people. No one knew what was going on. The other priest said that we were ruining their dinner and my partner said that they were ruining people’s lives. The priest said, ‘We will pray for you.’ My partner said, ‘Please don’t pray for me. I was raised as a Congregationalist and we were taught to think for ourselves.’ The priest replied again: ‘I will pray for you.’ And at that point we both left.”
Nienstedt did not return Lavender‘s request for comment on Larson’s allegations, so at this point it’s a he-said, he-said situation. Still, as a former Catholic who now fights for LGBT equality against the likes of John Nienstedt, I personally found the story terribly interesting. I’d like to know what you think of Larson’s response. Do you think it was warranted? Did it accomplish anything? If you suddenly and unexpectedly found yourself sitting just yards away from such an outspoken homophobe, would you confront them?
And of course, if you’ve actually done something like this, I’d be fascinated to hear that story too.
By the way, click here to read the full article from Lavender reporter John Townsend. It’s on page 51.
It is essential that people confront bigots and racists, when basic human rights are violated….!
Gregg Larson was wrong in every respect here. Whatever his feelings about these matters, he was wrong. Thirty years ago someone may have confronted him about his lifestyle and openly displayed contempt for he and his partner, even if they were just having dinner together. Larson surely wouldn’t have cared for that. Now he uses the same approach against someone whose opinions he disparages. The difference is the change in social attitudes but that is where both scenarios are wrong. You aren’t going to persuade by name-calling and public scenes, and if you try you reduce complex matters to a schoolyard contest in which the loudness and insults win the day. We gay people don’t accomplish much by hurling insults and scorn at the religious right. Sure it is momentarily satisfying and if focuses public attention, but not always in a positive way. It becomes an escalating war of words which quickly loses impact as the stakes get higher.
Also, of course a Catholic bishop is going to defend the church’s teaching. What else would you expect him to do? That is what bishops do, that is how one becomes a bishop. It is misguided to expect a Catholic bishop to say anything else.
What “lifestyle” are you referring to medwards?
Also, Nienstedt is doing much more than having a “different opinion”. He is actively working to harm those who he believes are inferior to him and attempting to enforce the rules of his religion on people who are not members. His “religion” and “personal opinions” do not give him a free pass. Larson is under no obligation to take the attacks on his family lying do like the good little inferior Nienstedt thinks he is.
If Gregg Larson’s behavior is the way he describes it, I think he did a good thing. The archbishop was confronting gay people and their relationships in their homes with the mailing of his DVDs, he was confronting lesbian and gay people in the pulpits of his churches during Mass, he was confronting gay people in his archdiocesan newspaper, and he was confronting people with his money and was confronting children in their classrooms in the archdiocesan schools. He was going into people’s faces and private spaces and public spaces with his outrageous behavior.
I also think that bringing up the rumors of the archbishop’s homosexuality was quite appropriate. Anyone who is so stridently antigay is suspect. He was not just expressing the teachings of the pope and other bishops. He was going way out of his way to be as in-your-face as he could be.
I have confronted people at times. The one time I remember most clearly was a situation that arose when conservative religious people were passing around petitions in the State of IL to try to get a non binding sense of the people vote against same sex marriages. I was sitting at a small table in a donut shop, eating my breakfast, when a man from a local church came in and sat at my small table without asking permission. He ignored me and proceeded to talk with some women at the next table, asking them to sign the petition. I was outraged. I told him that I was gay and took offense at his attack on the relationships of friends of mine. Our conversation continued for some time until he finally left. Apparently the women at the next table didn’t want to be in the middle of this heated discussion and they left while we talked. After he left and I began to reflect on the conversation in hindsight. I wished I had told him that he was very rude in sitting at my table, in my space, without asking my permission and in proceeding to ignore me and engage in a conversation with the women about a topic that was very offensive to me personally. Of course, hindsight is always clearer after the heat of an argument.
Medwards—I disagree totally. If the Bishop and his ilk feel free to hurl all manner of insults at the GLBT folks, we have every right to fight fire with fire, since taking a passive role accomplished nothing. Gregg Larson did exactly the right thing. Had I been there, I may even have raised my voice and made a little scene! Just for my personal satisfaction. Yes, perhaps he’s running away from “something” in himself, just as many of us in the gay community did for many years.
Medwards, I don’t know what planet you live on but Gregg Larson was RIGHT in every respect. This self-loathing old Queen needs to know EXACTLY who he is affecting and needs to be publicly shamed and humiliated wherever he goes. His dinner was being ruined. Big fcking deal. Frankly, he is so steeped in his churchly political fortune-seeking that he is probably beyond redemption. Anyone who’s conscience is so seared that they would turn on a group that is among the most vulnerable in society is despicable. His religion and his personal ambition have made him worthy of public opprobrium, pure and simple.
Medwards, your beloved archbishop(ric)’s “opinions” are being used in the real world to hurt real people, within his religion and outside of it. Is it too much to expect a catholick bishop to maybe use their Gawd-given conscience a little bit instead of defending “the church’s teaching” when it is so egregious? This church’s teachings have changed plenty over time, by the way and will continue to do so to keep people from leaving. Anyway, I couldn’t disagree with you more.
But thanks for writing.
Confronting bullying and homophobia is aprtly doen on the web and in the press and in polite, toss-me-an-easy-ball interviews with typical friendly, uber-anti-gay radio hosts.
The other thing one must always do with bullies, is to confront them in relaity, a phsyical presence. It should not be violent but there MUST be such confrontation without the mediation of the other things I mentioned. Bullies and haters MUST be made to account for their words, and the impact of those words, in person.
Well done to Gregg Larson for doing exactly that.
@medwards:
I must respectfully disagree. ONE dead child is more than enough reason for exactly what happened, and as a person who many years ago went to the burial of a friend who at 16 years old killed himself, according to people who I had every reason to trust, because he was homosexual and was rejected by his deeply religious Roman Catholic family – I personally know of at least one dead child — and I have every reason to believe that there are many more — so do you.
The Archbishop is the leader of the Archdiocese of St. Paul. As a prelate his duty, his SOLE duty is to care for his people and to support justice. He doesn’t. Hierarchy means NOTHING. If you are being opposed by the hierarchy, you defy it to the point of death if you must. That is the duty of those who are people of faith, particularly if they are also members of the Religious. Care for your people without judgement. No doctrine ever supersedes that duty. To not follow that basic requirement invalidates any apostolic laying on of hands and any ordination.
If I were in Larson’s shoes I’d have done the same thing but I’d have probably lost my cool and made a much bigger scene.
Polite extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. If the archbishop wants to make a political issue out of people’s lives, he’s a political figure. We have the right and the duty to confront our political figures to redress our grievances. The archbishop would like to set himself up in the Office of Public Morals — we have the right and duty to protest his assumption of civil power. Perhaps destroying the materials and dumping it on the table was a bit much, but calm anger makes an opponent think — and the archbishop I’m sure has done much thinking on this since the incident.
I think Mr. Larson handled it perfectly. No yelling, no screaming, none of the hystrionics that the bigots LOVE to acscuse us of. He merely returned the letter and the DVD.
This man has blood on his hands from LGBT kids who have committed suicide due to the hatred of GLBT people preached bith by the Catholic hierarchy and fundie groups. He is suporting the intrusion in the state constitution of religiously-based bigotry and inequality. He should be challenged. Good for Mr. Larson!
Sorry. Meant “…preached both by the Catholic hierarchy and fundie groups.”