The Bishop vs the Drag Queen

I am concerned by the outburst displayed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lincoln, James D. Conley, concerning the mocking of the Catholic Mass by a UNL doctoral student “in drag”. It seems to embody a profound misunderstanding of the role of the clergy in Christianity – and in the best of "Catholic Culture". It also seems to display a profound misunderstanding of Christ's teachings on these matters., as in the Beatitudes Matthew 5:11-12 and Matthew 5:23-26.

Bishop Conley is speaking as an administrator, exhibiting protectiveness of the institution he represents through a combative attitude. He is, however, forgetting the truth which institution is supposed to embody.

He quotes the words of St, Francis, “All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of [a] single candle,” yet forgets the examples that St. Francis embodied. Consider this from The Little Flowers of St, Francis (Chapter 26):

... at that time three notorious robbers frequented the district, the which wrought many ill deeds therein; and upon a day they came to the said Place of the friars and besought the said Friar Angelo, the guardian, that he would give them to eat; whereupon the guardian answered them after this manner, rebuking them harshly: "Ye robbers and cruel murderers, not only are ye not ashamed to rob others of the fruits of their toil, but, presumptuous and impudent that ye are, ye would even devour the alms which are sent to the servants of God.

Unworthy are ye that the earth should bear you up; for ye have no reverence for men or for the God who created you. Go, then, about your business, and never show yourselves here again." Therefore were they wrath [wroth] and gat them thence in eat indignation.

And lo! St. Francis returned from without, with his wallet of bread and a small vessel of wine, which he and his companion had begged; and, when the guardian had told him how he had driven those men away, St. Francis rebuked him severely, saying that he had borne himself cruelly, inasmuch as sinners are better led back to God by gentleness than by cruel reproofs;" For [said he] our Master Jesus Christ, whose Gospel we have promised to observe, saith that they that are whole need not a physician but they that are sick, and that He was not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; and therefore often did He eat with them.

Seeing, then, that thou hast done contrary to charity and contrary to the Holy Gospel of Christ, I command thee, by holy obedience, that thou forthwith take this wallet of bread, which I have begged, and this vessel of wine, and seek them diligently, through mountains and valleys, until thou find them, and give them all this bread and wine in my name; and afterward do thou kneel down before them and humbly confess to them thy sin of cruelty; and then pray them in my name to do evil no longer, but to fear God and offend Him no more ...

Bishop Conley, it seems to me, is playing the part of Friar Angelo, not that of St. Francis. He would do well to take St. Francis' advice in this.

At the same time, Bishop Conley is right about one thing. Our students need to be more conversant with ethical (and, ideally, moral) concepts and how these concepts apply to them  – as they do to all of us! They, the students, are mostly here to learn, but too often only with an eye to obtaining employment, which to a degree is fine. But to obtain employment is to enter into society, and society is where ethics is required, where they must exist – where they can only exist – if we are ever to achieve a better society and culture.

This is supremely relevant now, when cost-cutting figures so largely in the University's focus, and they, seemingly unacquainted with ethics and morality themselves, are focusing on eliminating programs and departments that are most relevant to these issues ... issues, programs and studies without which our society & culture can never improve. 

The University is set on a course that will contribute to the dissolution of our society and culture, not its betterment, and they must be made aware of this. Philosophy & religion ... the arts & humanities in general are crucial to our development as a culture, of which society is a subset. All students at the University need to be exposed to them. Employment without ethical predisposition is detrimental to society at large.

Bishop Conley is right to point this out, not because of one student's views concerning the church or the Eucharist and Mass – it is not just a Catholic Church matter – and not because of the existence of free speech, but because our students … and ourselves … must learn not to use it to disrespect each other.

This is true not only in religion, but also in spirituality, politics, and general behavior when relating to each other. It applies not only to the doctoral student in this instance, but also to Bishop Conley as well.

He is right to say that “Education should strive for the true, the good and the beautiful – not lies, evil and ugliness,” but as a Catholic … as a Christian … he would do well to heed Christ's words as related in Matthew 5:22-24, “Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment, and whoever addresses his brother in an insulting way will answer for it,” (in the manner in which your life and goals, be they spiritual or otherwise, unfold), and “Therefore, when offering your gift at the altar, if you should remember that your brother has something against you,  leave your gift there at the altar and first go to be reconciled with your brother. Then return and offer your gift.”

I would have hoped that Bishop Conley would have noticed that the only possible reason for the student to engage in such behavior in front of the church could have been that he wanted the church to notice his complaint, his discontentment with the church and its stances and policies. Instead, the Bishop took it in a medieval manner (very troglodytic rather than Christian) as a gauntlet thrown down before him as a challenge to engage in combat.

The student, of course, presented his case in a rather infantile manner, unbecoming the dignity of his complaint – and of his status as a graduate student at UNL. This is somewhat understandable, given that Bishop Bruskewitz clearly demonstrated that more dignified complaints to the bishopric were simply responded to with excommunications ... a modern equivalent of a tantrum, just as this student's complaint was presented. Nonetheless, it does not excuse that both the Bishop and the student behaved in rather infantile manners, unbecoming their offices and stances.

The upshot is that we all need to treat each other with respect and kindness – something sorely lacking in our society today – both among some drag queens and Bishops! Just because someone is wrong, does not mean that they are not among the beloved of God, and deserving of the dignity that this conveys upon them!

The University would be right to point out that they are not here to protect the Church. However, while they are not here to teach morality, they ought to be teaching philosophy, including ethics. 

Both are important: ethics and morality. It is not the place of the State to teach, for instance, that abortion or variant sexuality is wrong, but rather why some people might think that it is, and that their sensibilities in this need to be respected. 

Similarly, it is the Church's place, not the State's, to teach that it is wrong and why. If they are not doing that, it is because they are not presenting it properly. 

Students should not be subjected to church teaching -- there are too many churches and denominational differences to permit that, and haranguing them is not only unchristian, it is just plain stupid. 'How to reasonably attract youth' is a cross the church must bear today, not a responsibility or directive to passed off to secular authorities.

The University needs to do its job, and the Church needs to do its job, without blaming each other for any ignorance or problems that exist.

Purely secular, quite reasonably, may point out hypocrisy in the Church when it comes to condemning homosexuality and gender confusion, when these things are wrong primarily because the Church and religion have declared them wrong; but is it the place of the church to declare this for non-religious people? It is hypocrisy to insist that non-Catholics and non-Christians obey Catholic and Christian rules, since they do not acknowledge the Catholic and Christian dictates in this. It is even hypercritical for the Church to be condemning others for not adhering to its standards.

The Church ought to be following its own Biblical standards, such as related in  Matthew 7:3-5,  Matthew 22:39, Matthew 5:23-26, Matthew 18:21-22, etc, as they apply to the church. Others (non-Christians) ought to seriously look at their ethical standards. Christians need to be better Christians, while others of us need to simply become better human beings! 

And of all those, it is Christians, upon whom it is explicitly incumbent upon to treat even their enemies as friends!

by Mark Fairchild. August 2025