The Church fails the Bechdel Test

Feminist and LGBTQ Twitter was a-buzz the last few weeks with conversations about a new modern adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Fire Island (rated R) is based on the real-life setting of Fire Island (an island near Long Island, NY) that is home to two LGBTQ-centric resorts, Fire Island Pines is a gay community and Cherry Grove is a lesbian resort. The movie centers a group of young gay men who come to stay at the home of their older lesbian friend (played by Margaret Cho) every summer. Though the movie appears to be all about parties, alcohol, drugs, and sex, the film centers the complexities of the characters and relationships with true Austen flair.

Hanna Rosin tweeted earlier this month that Fire Island doesn’t pass the Bechdel Test and received a LOT of scrutiny for that comment. The Bechdel Test, created by Alison Bechdel in 1985 has three parts:

1. Are two women present in the work?
2. If so, do they speak to each other?
3. Is that conversation about anything else besides a man?

If the answer is yes to all of these questions, then the piece of media in question passes the Bechdel test. This test is widely popular in feminist media circles, but admittedly imperfect. It works for a quick cultural analysis to open awareness of who holds more screen time and representation in media but clearly doesn’t account for other gender expressions, race, class, etc.  So, when Rosin tweeted that this movie didn’t pass the Bechdel test, she heard some feedback. The movie does not indeed feature a scene with two women having a conversation, but it does feature multiple conversations about race and class in the gay community, it highlights the stories of three AAPI protagonists, it uses an important historical and present-day setting for the LGBTQ community, and Conrad Ricamora masters that Darcy-eque darkness. Rosin did rescind her Tweet and stated that she was truly sorry and “The movie was telling a story about queer AAPI men whose experiences don’t show up enough in movies or anywhere.”

It is unsurprising that the Church also fails the Bechdel test on a regular basis (if you are reading this blog, you are likely to agree), but the church also does a poor job at representation on many fronts. In a renewed effort to support the vocation of marriage, the Church is proposing a new marriage preparation and support program. 

Earlier this month, the Church released a 97-page booklet prepared by the Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life that outlines a new marriage preparation plan for Catholic couples. NCR states that this has been vocalized as a concern for lay Catholics since the 1950’s, but I would guess likely before that as well. It is certainly a topic of conversation among lay Catholics getting married today. Some of the curricula look great in summary; a longer process of supporting newlywed couples after marriage, more time with couples in a set year-long engagement workshop, and education about marriage as a vocation beginning in early childhood.

I see some dangers in this early layout, though the Vatican did say that they were committed to reviewing this new catechism after a few pilot years. One of the biggest critiques of the current Pre-Cana program amongst my Catholic Millennial friends and Gen Z students is that the priest leading conversations (at least large parts of the programs in many places) does not share marriage as a vocation with those he is serving. This, rightly or naively, further pushes clericalist ideas; this man has more knowledge than those who are actually living out the vocation. Many progressive dioceses and parishes across the country have included lay ministers in these workshops, which is helpful, but not a fix-all. There is usually not a licensed counselor present and a mentality of “let’s just finish this in the two hours we are required to be here so we can have the ceremony in the church that we want” attitude to get everyone out on time. In this regard, I think a longer pre-marital preparation program sounds like a great idea, but it needs to be more diverse and suited to the group that it is serving. The curriculum pushes to encourage pre-marital chastity and teaching of Catholic doctrine during this year-long engagement period as well, saying that this will be a great challenge in cultures where couples cohabitate before marriage. An argument could be made here that couples living in those cultures choose to cohabitate and have a “trial marriage” period before and during an engagement because the Church (and other religious organizations) have lacked true preparation and couples have created their own. The very scary part of this roll-out states that if, at the end of this year-long process, the church (or likely whoever is left to do this evaluation) will not allow the couple to be married with the sacrament. This is not only furthering the gate-keeping around sacraments in the community but will likely push couples that may have been on the fence about being married in the church fully away.

In regard to the idea of supporting newlywed couples in the immediate years following the sacrament, this also seems great from afar, but when you get closer the church’s motives seem a little fishy. The church doesn’t have the person-power currently to make sacraments available on a regular basis to many communities and this charge may rely on lay ministers, which again, appears like a great idea, but where are the licensed therapists, counselors, and financial advisors to make this program really successful. IF this catechism is going to flourish, it must be more than a coffee and donuts group in a church basement. 

The biggest danger that strikes me comes with the early childhood catechism that this program promises to develop out of the ideology that in doing so, the church will attract more people “that otherwise probably wouldn’t get married.” (Dicastery of Laity, Family, and Life). Let us remember that church teaching around marriage includes only heterosexual couples.

This whole framework (though not fully developed yet) feels like another way for the church to dig in against opening the sacrament to all expressions of love that we know exist among the faithful.