Scottish Archbishop says ‘transsexual Jesus’ play part of agenda to mock Christianity

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 30

Glasgow, United Kingdom, Nov 9, 2009 / 09:54 pm (CNA).- The Archbishop of Glasgow has denounced a publicly funded play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual, saying it is a “provocative and offensive abuse” of Christian beliefs. He suggested the event is part of an agenda to “mock Christianity.”

The play “Queen of Heaven” is being staged in the Tron Theatre as part of the publicly funded “Glasgay!” arts festival, which describes itself as “Scotland’s Annual celebration of queer culture,” the BBC reports.

Some 300 people held a candlelight protest of the play outside the theatre.

Festival producer Steven Thomson described the play as a “literary work of fiction exploring the artist’s own personal journey of faith as a transgendered person.”

"This work is not intended to incite or offend anyone of any belief system,” claimed festival producer Steven Thomson. “However, we respect your right to disagree with that opinion."

Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow was critical of the production, saying in a statement:

"It is difficult to imagine a more provocative and offensive abuse of Christian beliefs than this play. That it should be supported by public funds is nothing short of disgraceful. Coming hot on the heels of the scandalous exhibition earlier this year which encouraged the defacing of the bible, this latest initiative can only be read as part of an agenda to mock Christianity.”

He said that the event's financial backers, the Glasgow City Council and Culture and Sport Glasgow, have “serious questions” to answer concerning why such projects are funded at a time of budget cuts.

"Far from combating prejudice, productions like this reinforce stereotypes. Organizers should realize that you do not promote tolerance of the minority by offending and insulting the majority."

The 300 protesters gathered outside the theatre waved placards which bore phrases like “Jesus, King of Kings, not Queen of Heaven.”

Jo Clifford, the 59-year-old formerly known as John Clifford who authored and stars in the one-man play, told the London Times most of the protest is happening because of “a complete misunderstanding of what I am and what I am trying to do.

“They thought awful, sacrilegious things were going to happen on stage,” he added, claiming that he has shown the script to priests who say it “corresponds to what the Bible says.”

He charged that protesters disapprove of his “transgendered identity.”

Clifford, the father of two children, began living as a woman five years ago after the death of his partner, feminist writer Sue Innes.

The play’s 300 protesters included Pastor Jack Bell of the Zion Baptist Church in Glasgow.

"We didn't threaten anyone going into the play or any of the cast members,” he told BBC News.

"It was a peaceful protest with hymns and placards.

"You can't blaspheme God and use freedom of speech as an excuse for that."

"True biblical Christianity is becoming marginalized through political correctness,” he charged, wondering how a play that had treated Mohammed the same way would be received.

Comments: 30

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Brendan Bradley
Ireland 11/20/2009 05:02 PM EST

"no one that I know of has ever claimed there's a "Trans-gene" Infact there is much dispute over the exact cause". Compare this with the last lines of your entry: "And then there's research published in 2008 that suggests that Transsexuality may have a genetic component. So THERE's your science arguements." Where is the proven science of causes here? Look at your own language: "much dispute" over "exact cause," "suggests," "possibly," "may have a genetic component." This suggests 'much' uncertainty, work in progress. On the one hand you are chary about genetic component, the 'trans-gene', and on the other, hail the 2008 study as saying there 'may be' a genetic component. If science is indeed moving towards a definitive cause of this medical condition, and given that there may be a genetic component according to the 2008 study you cite, then surgery may not be the only solution as you claim. Genes can be modified to change many medical 'conditions.' If such alteration becomes possible in the womb or early childhood, should a woman insist on this for her child, or allow it to suffer the pain you have experienced?

Published by: Jo
UK 11/19/2009 02:36 PM EST

- continued - 118 trangender people have been killed so far this year for no other reason then being Trans. Do you really think we choose that? Being Transsexual isn't a lifestyle choice and anyone that tells you otherwise doesn't know anything about it. Michael Glatze has nothing to do with Transsexuality, which as I said has nothing to do with sex, it's about gender.

Published by: Jo
UK 11/19/2009 02:24 PM EST

Being Transsexual has nothing to do with Homosexuality and no one that I know of has ever claimed there's a "Trans-gene". Infact there is much dispute over the exact cause, from studies of Transsexual brains that show they are far more like those brains of non-trans women, to a study found a correlation between digit ratio and male-to-female transsexualism. Male-to-female transsexual people were found to have a higher digit ratio than control males, but one that was comparable to control females. Because digit ratio is known to be directly related to prenatal hormone exposure, this tends to support theories linking such to male-to-female transsexualism. There have also been studies in Sweden suggesting that transsexuality is associated with cross-gendered specific hypothalamic circuits, possibly as a consequence of a variant neuronal differentiation. Whilst experiments in Germany using MRI have shown that Transsexual women have patterns of brain activity closely corresponding to female norms when performing tasks that are known to show sex-differentiation in that area. And then there's research published in 2008 that suggests that Transsexuality may have a genetic component. So THERE's your science arguements. I've known I was female for as long as I can remember. That's KNOWN, not had some mental breakdown and not chosen. I say "unfortunate to be transsexual" because no one chooses to be. The pain, the heart-ache, the stigma, the abuse, the assaults, even the murders -

Published by: Brendan Bradley
Ireland 11/19/2009 10:20 AM EST

Jo, please keep the lines of communication open. What we say here is not in any way designed to hurt you personally or indeed Jo(hn) Clifford (that's the best I can do with the pronouns for the minute). In all love and charity talk to us, if you can, about your pain. You say "Ms Clifford - unfortunate to be transgender." This can mean that "Ms Clifford" suffered social rejection post surgery, and/or that the pain of not being a woman proved ultimately too much. In an earlier entry you spoke of surgery or 'suicide' as the only solution. This concerns me greatly, because it means being in the grip of forces we can't control, and we do not have the freedom which the Prince of Light Himself wants for each and every one of us. The action Jo Clifford took was not a private one and drew fire. We are all caught up in that, painfully so. I don't want to say things that hurt anyone; nobody does, but God-given reason,(enlightened by faith, not just faith on its own, Jo) won't be silenced. If there was some way of giving you my private email I would gladly do so if it enables us both towards mutual understanding and compassion. I won't promise to compromise on truth, you won't either, I'm sure, as you see it, but I hope only to act in love. We both are commanded to do so. I will pray for you. I ask you to do so for me. Brendan

Published by: Robertz
USA 11/17/2009 10:00 PM EST

Jo, not only faith but science also. With the completion of the human genome, it is now confirmed that there is no "gay genes" or "trans genes". A person is not born that way. In fact, decades ago in trying to force the APA to recognize homosexuality etc as normal, activists claimed that it was not an illness (mental or not, at birth or not) but freely chosen. You should read up on Michael Glatze, who used to be a homosexual and top activist, but chose to leave that lifestyle after seeing through the lies of the community who seek to normalize sexual "perversions" and now claims happiness he never achieved in his former lifestyle. He saw the self-destructiveness of the lifestyle, and chose life instead. Biologically, Mr. Clifford is male and that will never change, ever. No surgery can change that fact. He,Mr, etc are the correct pronouns objectively. You call us bigots for, in a sense, claiming turtles are unable to fly through the air like a bird. We will continue to turn the other cheek while praying for you and others to come to the truth. May you find the peace and true life that Christ offers, as Michael Glatze and many others have!

Published by: Jo
UK 11/17/2009 05:14 AM EST

You know what, I'm going to withdraw from this. You have your reasons for believing as you do, I have mine. I've no doubts that sooner or later someone is going to be hurt by what is said and I've a feeling it'll probably be me. I'm not saying I'm wrong, my reasons for believing as I do come from my own experiences and nothing you can do or say can or will change that. Yours comes from your faith and I'll not try to force you to question that. You disapprove of the play, in the end that's your choice. I ask only that you show some tollerance to those of us, like Ms Clifford - unfortunate to be transgender - we did NOT choose to be. IF you can accept that then I'll be happy, sorry if you can't; but please don't judge us or call us perverts or the like.

Published by: Jo
UK 11/16/2009 12:07 PM EST

No Ms Clifford did NOT CHOOSE to be transsexual, none of us do. She did not wake up one morning and think "Hmmm, today I shall be a woman" any more then Nelson Mandela decided he'd be black! Transsexualism is a medical condition people are born with - and one for which there is no cure save for surgury - before you suggest something. Some - such as Ms Clifford - try hard to be what everyone expects them to be, which can include having familes but eventually that lie is too much to bare. There is nothing in the articles to say that Ms Clifford's children have a problem with her being female, or that she no longer cares for them. Nor do you know how her family have taken it. Don't presume that because you have a problem with it, they must do too. We don't choose to be what we are, we fight it for as long as we can (and belive me when I say it hurts like nothing you'd believe) and then we loose and have to admit what we are. It's that or suicide - which I understand is a sin. Your insistance on calling Ms Clifford and those like her by the wrong pronoun when we are not is why I call you bigoted. Of course you probably won't believe me, address me as male or do something else just a bigoted, but that'll just prove my point. I'm not asking you to like her play, you can even dissaprove of it for all I care. All I'm asking for is a little bit of tollerance and respect.

Published by: Brendan Bradley
Ireland 11/15/2009 10:31 PM EST

Jo, let no words of mine cause any hurt. But I must say that you are wrong in accusing me or anyone else of bigotry when objections are made to this play. I asked some perfectly reasonable questions which you answered with more rhetoric and accusations of bigotry and intolerance. Yes, of course, Clifford's transsexuality and the theme of the play are connected: Clifford made the connection himself; not me. Nor did you make any reference re. offence to God or Mary. A rational commentary on this would be most welcome. I was wondering when the old chestnut of racism would come up and I wasn't disappointed. You ask and answer your own questions, so I'll not elaborate too much, save to say that the argument is bogus: colour and race are not chosen; Clifford on the other hand chose to change his sex. You defend transsexuality as something unavoidable that has to be accepted by us all otherwise we are bigots. Are we not permitted to challenge this perception? Whence tolerance here? Moreover, you completely ignore the ramifications for a family man in his fifties to wipe out his past as father. Is this morally right? If you were to refer to that period in his life when he was father and husband, would you address him as ‘her’ in relation to fatherhood? Consider other families in this position when a husband decides to change his sex. Is there no hurt or confusion to those left behind? A reasoned response, please, Jo, without the smokescreens of intolerance and bigotry.

Published by: Jo
UK 11/14/2009 07:24 AM EST

So I'm right, your problem regarding this play is the transsexual aspect of it. Both with the main character AND with Ms Clifford HERSELF. How nice. So you'd alienate someone who through no fault of her own is part of a small minority, you'd show them bigotry, just because they are different to you. And then you'd have the affront to call yourself Christian. I expected better then that. Would you turn on a black man or someone in a wheel chair? What if a middle eastern man had portraid Jesus of middle eastern dissent? Oh wait!... He was! Would that be okay? So, because Ms Clifford is a Transsexual, portraying Jesus; you say it's okay to be biggoted and abusive about her - and yes that is indeed what you are doing - but then that's okay, because you are a Christian. As far as I have seen and read there is no mockery of Christianity on the part of Ms Clifford, you've all blown this out of the water yourselves and revealled for all to see the darker biggoted side of Christianity, nicely done.

Published by: Brendan Bradley
Ireland 11/13/2009 03:44 PM EST

Jo,like myself, you have not seen this play. But this has not prevented your forming an opinion from press reviews that it is not blasphemous. Likewise, I conclude that this play is blasphemous, for very good reasons. Blasphemy fails to respect God, in this case, God made Man. Blaspheming the 'honourable name' of Jesus, is to be condemned, as St James says (2:7). The manhood and kingship of Jesus is explicitly undermined in the play’s provocative title, "Jesus, Queen of Heaven." This challenges Christian and Catholic belief and demands a defence, whatever the motivation of the author. “Queen of Heaven” is a very special designation reserved for Mary, the Mother of God. Clifford modifies this cherished doctrine for his own, transsexual ends and GLBT ideology. But why worry, we are asked; it’s just a fiction, like ‘Star Wars’ or ‘Cats!’ It is frankly absurd to compare Clifford's 'Jesus' with inoffensive fictitious characters. Was Jesus transformed into a star trooper or a Mr. Mistoffelees? This grossly trivialises serious matter, not least in respect of Clifford’s children: they have witnessed their father ‘change’ sex late in life, and along with the wider community, will have to cope with the virtual elimination of his entire male history, public and private. How do the children remember their father’s vital narrative now? Can this really be obliterated surgically?

Published by: Jo
UK 11/12/2009 05:18 AM EST

Ah, nice to see bigotry and Transphobia is alive and well in a religion who founding princaples include kindness and not turning people away. Can I ask have you seen this play? If not why not? on what specific grounds is it blasphemous? I have not seen it, but as far as I understand it, from reviews and the papers it neither ridicules or villifies Jesus or Christianity. It appears - from everything I have read about it - to simply be one womans take on her own beliefs combined with her own experiences and used to highlight life as a Transsexual. It is - so I understand - a fictional account of a fictional return of Jesus, who returns to Earth as transgender. So in other words not real. So why all the fuss over something that isn't real and isn't meant to be taken as any more real and factual then say Superman or Star Wars or CATS or any other fictional story you care to name. Could it simply be that through no fault of her own Ms Clifford is Transsexual? A condition that is recognised by the medical profession around the world. Is THAT your "blasphemy"? If it is then you disappoint me greatly. Transphobia and bigotry belong in the history books not the Christian religion - please correct me if I'm wrong.

Published by: Robertz
USA 11/11/2009 05:45 PM EST

Mr. John Clifford is objectively a male, and that will never change. No matter how much people mutilate and destroy their own bodies, it will never change their gender.

Published by: Brendan Bradley
Ireland 11/11/2009 03:31 PM EST

So somehow this 'woman' was once a father of two children and then late on in life he decides that he really is 'she' and we should now call 'him' 'her' and make no reference to the time when he was a father and, presumably, called Mr Clifford. And as Jo thinks it offensive not to acknowledge Clifford as 'she' and 'her' perhaps she (Jo) would be PC enough to call this play blasphemous as it offends Christian sensibilities?

Published by: Alba
Boston 11/11/2009 01:27 PM EST

The Anti=Christ is alive and well. Jesus, Your kingdom come. Your remnant people are faithful. The sexual perversity and disorders of this present time are as those of the time of Lot in Sodom and Gamorrah. As Catholics we pray for those disordered by sin to be healed and we continue to fight the battle of life to protect the innocent from this evil culture

Published by: Canisius
NY NY 11/11/2009 09:08 AM EST

It is time to turn anger into deeds and deed into violence enough is enough

Published by: Liz Church
Glasgow 11/11/2009 08:09 AM EST

Jo Clifford is a woman. You have chosen to use male pronouns to refer to her. This is an infantile and unnecessary response to what was nothing more than a play of interest to a vanishingly small minority. You might safely have ignored it as befits a religion that has been established for 2000 years. This will only fuel further antagonism.

Published by: Jennie Kermode
Glasgow 11/11/2009 07:35 AM EST

I am sorry to hear that the Archbishop feels this way about 'Jesus, Queen of Heaven', and I wonder if he has seen it or conversed with its writer/performer. As somebody who knows Jo I can assure you that she is a mature, thoughtful woman and not the sort of person to engage in mockery. She would certainly not consider the portrayal of Jesus as a trans woman to be slanderous when she is one herself. Rather, she has set out to explore her personal relationship with Jesus as many people do, seeking to understand herself in His image. This is an opportunity for the Church to form positive connections with groups of people who have traditionally felt excluded from it.

Published by: sheila bishop
uk 11/11/2009 06:28 AM EST

This Glasgow rubbish is another sacreligeous blasphemy directed against the only begotten Son of the living God. Jesus Christ is (eternal) High Priest, True prophet and Sovereign King of all creation. Take care perpatrators, His Mercy is soon to be overcome by His Justice. Chirsians are obliged to leave just punishment to Him who is Lord and God and Master of all. The perpatrators have been starved of pure chaste love which is distributed through loving parents and family, as well as community. Remember, love the sinner, Hate the sin. May God have mercy on the souls of the perpatrators against His Majesty and Dignity, Sanctity and Divinity.

Published by: Nancy
Louisville, KY. USA 11/11/2009 01:00 AM EST

Enough with the Christian BASHING!!! As the person above me stated; "These cowards wouldn't dare mock Hindus, Muslim or Jews." Their afraid they'de get a car bomb under the hood when they left the theatre! As Christians we're taught to "Turn the other cheek." Well, I don't know about you, but my cheek is getting awfully red.

Published by: Verdieu Pierre
Philadelphia/PA/USA 11/11/2009 12:59 AM EST

The return of Christ is at hand. We must all be prepared for the day God will say that enough for blaspheming is the worst thing to do.

Published by: Rachelle
Los Angeles, CA 11/10/2009 08:01 PM EST

The word should go out that the play isn't really about a transsexual Jesus but a transsexual Mohammad. That makes more sense.

Published by: Jo
UK 11/10/2009 06:40 PM EST

Please address Ms Clifford correctly as she and her, not he and him. Weither you approve of HER play or not, don't be bigotted about her identity.

Published by: christopher
france 11/10/2009 05:08 PM EST

why is it that Jesus is always targetted, not bhudda, hindu or mohammed? its about time thst christians were given their rights against abuse in the uk.

Published by: Laura
Winona, Mn USA 11/10/2009 01:35 PM EST

The playwright claims to have shown his script to priests who then allegedly said that his script corresponds to the Bible. Is there a special GLBT Bible out there or something? The Bible I know and love portrays Jesus as a definite male, who, though unmarried, was definitely male and acted male, and upheld the sexual mores of His culture and time, which adhered to God's Law. How one can posit a "transgendered Jesus" out of that, I don't know. If the playwright didn't intend to mock Jesus, as he claims, perhaps he should have selected a less insulting title than "Queen of Heaven" (which title, without the gay spin, rightly belongs to Jesus' mother, not Jesus Himself, who is the King of Kings), and stuck to a script that explores his faith and issues from his own perspective rather than reimagining Jesus into his own image. He is wrong to assume that because Christians are insulted by his provacative and offensive title and play that they are protesting because they "disapprove of [his] transgendered identity." They are rightly protesting a deliberate distortion of Christian doctrine and a smear against Our Lord and Savior.

Published by: Karoline
Wisconsin, USA 11/10/2009 01:35 PM EST

If the script is true to scripture and the only difference is the gender of Christ, I don't see any cause for offense. Are the "offended" saying that it is an insult to be or to be called feminine? Well, of course they are, but perhaps they should consider how God feels about THAT insult to half of His beloved children.

Published by: Alberto
USA 11/10/2009 01:32 PM EST

We must pray for our misguided brothers and sisters. They don't know what awaits them.

Published by: Stephen
USA 11/10/2009 10:01 AM EST

It would seem that in this current culture of death to quote your article "you can blaspheme God and use freedom of speech as an excuse for that." All on public funds to boot. Despite this affront to Almighty God he is a good God of love, hope and mercy. God so loved us that he sent his only begotten son to suffer the crucifixion for the sins of all mankind. Just think of how patient this good God really is putting up with plays, movies and music that attack his divinity. Just ask the Pharaoh of Egypt in ancient times what happens to a King or leader of a nation that defies God and does not believe in this great Almighty God who is so patient and good and always ready to forgive his children for any affront. God have mercy on us.

Published by: DLL
scituate Mass 11/10/2009 09:59 AM EST

Evil people are defeated by the superiority of Christ. Evil people are stupid as they can only mock those they disagree with. One who is content with evil forces to guide them will always mock Christ. They do this because evil never recognizes Holy influences to be significant because evil forces are lairs and sources for deceit that always deny God.A play that mocks Christ really mocks the producer of it. That is why evil people are stupid. In mocking others they think they are clever? The true fool is the fool himself,as they are practicing their own sense of self deception,so truth can't abide in them.

Published by: Marti Abernathey
Madison, Wisconsin, USA 11/10/2009 09:38 AM EST

The irony is that you are PROMOTING this. I guess the Christian community didn't learn with "Piss Christ" that protesting things like this only helps the work of art in question.

Published by: H.J.D'Cruz
Karachi 11/10/2009 01:42 AM EST

The bunch of athiest or whoever they should know how to respect the sentiments of peaceful christians. They will not have the guts to speak against Islam, the sikhs,hindus or jews in such a way or heads and property will be blwn up. It is about time that christians stand up and come on the streets in peaceful protest. It is a shame that this type of mocking comes in a country that is tradiionally christin.Wake up or face face more mockery.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com