Order your copy of the zine vol. iii here.

As we mentioned recently, we owe a lot to Urban (formerly Michael) Hannon.

First, he opened the door to the queercath vibe shift.

Thanks to Urban, you can now actually think and say interesting things about Catholicism and sexuality. He’s blown open the doors, allowing us to move past simplistic (and boring) paradigms focused on whether “gayness” is “ok” or not.

Now, little queer kids growing up in Catholic families no longer have to ask themselves, “when will the Church/my parents/society/God accept me for who I really am?” Rather, they will ask “should I be a rad trad, BPD art heaux, Dimes scenester, monk, rent boy, eunuch for the Kingdom, non-binary, enter an MOM/Lavender Marriage, etc”…much more interesting.

Without him, it would be very hard for outlets like Cracks in PoMo to create a synthesis between orthodox Christian metaphysics/doctrine and postmodern theory/culture.

Also, Urban sat for not just one, but TWO pod interviews with us, both of which are in the top 5 most-listened-to eps in all of Cracks in PoMo history. If you haven’t already, please do listen to them: revisiting his essay “Against Heterosexuality” and on Brideshead vs. Call Me By Your Name vs. Love Simon.

Thus, we love Urban. But after having a discussion with someone at the New York Encounter about Urban’s influence on my FT piece, we thought we’d clarify the main point of contention we have with Urban’s seminal/infamous 2014 First Things essay (apparently the most read article on the website).

Points of contention

Our fear is that Urban’s argument is a little too gnostic, and thus a little too postmodern.