Still going through the motions

Salvatore Cordileone, all dressed up (and nowhere to go?)

As a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, I’m aware of the man who has headed the Archdiocese of San Francisco since October of 2012.  His name is Salvatore Cordileone and he is a conservative member of the church hierarchy who follows in the steps of conservatives before him. That includes George Niederauer, who will go down in history as the instigator of Proposition 8, the 2008 campaign run on lies and scare-tactics, which amended the state’s constitution and led to the overturn of the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.  That decision was later found unconstitutional by a federal court, fortunately, and an appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.   

Then there was the really awful William Joseph Levada, who was archbishop in San Francisco for ten years before making cardinal.  Levada is known locally (and beyond the Bay Area, as well, obviously) for his cover-up of the child-abuse scandal and for his support of others among the clergy who participated in cover-ups (I'm thinking of Mahoney of Los Angeles).  Whether it was in spite of or because of these efforts I can’t be sure, but he was subsequently made cardinal and rewarded with a prestigious job in Rome.

But that is now water under the bridge.  The current problem is Cordileone, who is now making headlines for agreeing to join NOM’s protest march in Washington, D.C. next week against same-sex marriage.

Actually, whether that is even a problem any more is now a question worth asking.  As a bishop, he is saying what bishops are required to say, no matter that most Catholics no longer dance to their tune. According to an October 2011 article in the National Catholic Reporter, fewer than 20% of Catholics believe the church’s views on abortion are authoritative.  When it comes to homosexuality, that figure drops to 16%.  On the topic of contraception, only 10% admit to taking their cue from the church.   One study showed that while there were 205,000 Catholics attending mass in San Francisco regularly in 1961, that figure had dropped to 107,000 thirty-five years later.  Another showed that while half the people in San Francisco identified as Catholic in 1950, no more than 20% did so in 2011.    Put those figures together and you have to wonder who is actually listening  to the archbishop anymore.  

At the same time, things flare up when the church actually takes steps to try to control the behavior of teachers in Catholic Schools, as was shown recently, when the church pressed its teachers into a contract that entitled them to fire them if they were caught behaving badly, according to church teaching.  At the same time, when push came to shove, the church demonstrated that it prefers not to run gay people and gay-friendly people out of their jobs.  It simply wants them to follow a don’t ask/don’t tell policy of lying by omission. If they insist on being honest about who they are, well, that's not the church's problem.

In contrast to the clericalists are Catholics like Hans Küng, for example, the Roman Catholic theologian who argues that

(t)he requirement of celibacy is not a tenet of faith.  It is a medieval canon law that should have been abrogated long ago in response to the well-founded criticism of the sixteenth-century reformers.*

Küng also argues that

(t)he traditional arguments against preaching by women and the ordination of women are not merely outdated, they are also theologically dubious and untenable.*

I wonder why it is more people don’t insist we ought to get together and pass a law requiring the Catholic Church to change these unsound practices forthwith.  They are not in keeping with our civil laws supporting marriage and equality between the sexes.  

The reason, obviously, is that we have separation of church and state in this country, and Cordileone is way over the line in suggesting non-Catholics should be governed by laws an ever-diminishing minority of Catholic clerics would impose on them.

I might wonder as well why it is that Cordileone is scheduled to address his fellow bishops next week in New Orleans to urge them to use their power and influence to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed which would prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying.  But I know the answer.  He knows he’s right, and when you’re right, you have to get out there and make things go your way.

You have to appreciate the cojones it takes to appoint a man like Cordileone archbishop in San Francisco, America’s most gay-friendly city.  The man is, after all, the official church’s head of the USCCB's Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.  The USCCB is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the organization that runs the Catholic Church in America, subject to the pope’s approval.  

Most people in the know seem to believe same-sex marriage rights in this country are just a question of time.  Gay liberation advocates are falling all over each other, in fact, in amazement at the speed of attitude changes.  The topic came up on Terry Gross’s Fresh Air on NPR yesterday. Gross asked Hillary Clinton if she had been pro-gay all along but had to hold back her support till the time was right.  Clinton said no.  She, like Obama, had “evolved” on the issue. She then went on to make my point - that the speed of change has been nothing short of astonishing.

In San Francisco, where gays and lesbians still flock daily to City Hall to marry, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee are among the dozens of civic leaders urging Cordileone to disassociate himself from NOM, arguably the leading homophobic organization in the nation, and the anti-gay protest march they have scheduled for next week. The letter ends with

We ask that you will reconsider your participation and join us in seeking to promote reconciliation rather than division and hatred.

A group called Faithful America has put out a petition to Cordileone to withdraw, which the National Catholic Reporter reports  already has 20,000 signatures.  

Actually, Brian Brown, of the National Organization for Marriage, is worried not enough people will show up.    

Huckabee will be there, of course.  And Santorum.  

And Cordileone, with his photo up there with the rest of them.

I am not surprised that Cordileone would continue to toe the party line of the official church. Win or lose, the Catholic Church still holds the official position that gays are flawed human beings and he has to carry the banner, no matter how frayed it is becoming.  He still has to go through the motions.  

But surely he has had a look at how the NOM site video creates an absurd image of “Americans fighting for freedom” - cue Martin Luther King, using his photo.  What is the matter with the man that he would allow such wretched abuse of language and reason?   We stand strong.  We will not be moved.  We shall overcome.  We are church.  We are victims of oppression. We demand our right to make you buy into our notion of sin.  We will amend your constitution.

Has this man no shame?

*I have the Kindle version of Küng’s latest book to appear in English, Can We Save the Catholic Church?  Kindle, unfortunately does not show page numbers.  These quotes appear at the 36% mark, i.e., about a third of the way through.

Exchanging views with a conservative Catholic

Responding to my blog entry the other day entitled Bishops and Girls in Neckties, a conservative Catholic took issue with my celebration of humanism and the moral code of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   I see it as the moral code of the modern world and urge its fullest possible acceptance.    It's not morality, my correspondent insists. Only (traditional - his understanding of traditional) Catholic morality which deals with sin - is to be taken seriously.

It's always good to see ideas spelled out in black and white, I think.  Because Blogger doesn't permit lengthy exchanges in the commentary, I am posting our exchange here.  I assume my discussion partner has no objections, since his remarks appeared on this blog in another location.  He goes by Frontline Supervisor.

His first comment appeared on June 3.

Wrong. History is full of examples of Christians who have refused to bend to the non-Christian culture of their time and place, from Apostolic days onward. Christians RIGHT NOW in the Middle East are being TORTURED and KILLED because they WILL NOT bow to Islamic beliefs and prevailing "morality"! How much more shall we uncompromised Western believers with religious liberty protection and civil law on our side, at risk more of being socially ostracized by Christ-deniers and culturally compliant carnal Christians than flogged, imprisoned or stoned to death, REFUSE to bow to the evil Zeitgeist, the spirit of this post-Christian age, with your wicked idea of comparing disagreement with sexual sin to "white supremacy" or labelling "exclusion" of Christ-rejecting Jews from Heaven as "anti-Semitic". The God of ISRAEL, Jew AND Gentile alike, laughs at that modernistic ignorance. 

Churches do NOT have to change to accommodate majority cultural morality. I will not. We have the God-given RIGHT to be patriarchal, family centered, sexually pure, against masturbation, sensual worldly music, booze, pot, immodest dress, Hollywood, Godless government schools and ecumenism. Whatever applies to the billion-plus member Roman megalith, small Bible churches do NOT have to be "political" organizations who follow "democracy" either. I don't need a majority, or even 0.1 per cent to agree with me- just two or three gathering together agreed in His holy name plus God is enough.

As a Christian who is Millennial (20-something) and in the *moral MINORITY*, who proudly rejects the modern Western "equality, diversity, inclusion" view which holds a serial killer's life more valuable than a fetus' life and compares sex acts to skin color, I will just opt to withdraw even further from the secular culture and live in my country as a small religious minority if the currently "mainstream conservative" churches surrender to the culture. There will be an ultra-traditional remnant 100, 200, 500, yea even 10,000 years from now that will reject modernism's heretical lies if the Lord tarries.

As for defending my views? Only Christ's Body get to Heaven. Pluralism is a satanic delusion wrought by those who underestimate the awesome holiness of God and the depth of man's sin. I do not pray with false religionists, "interfaith" events are not acceptable. Luther's "exclusion" of Jews in terms of their blatant rejection of Christ recorded in God's Word, as builders who obstinately reject their Cornerstone Messiah Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is still applicable- his violence and hatred was wrong but it's better to "offend" Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc. by warning them of eternal perdition than "love" and "include" them as far as the Lake of Fire! "Inter-religious" "dialogue" only skirts the question sinners must face: are you washed in Christ's Blood or not? I scoff at foolish talk of "sides of history". Get on the right side of ETERNITY today. Missing out on mainstream cultural affirmation in this life is well worth it.

-A Christian who is about reality, not rhetoric, in my refusal to adapt to evil social norms.

To which I responded, on June 4th:

Dear Frontline Supervisor:

Thanks for tuning in with your reaction to what I had to say about the accommodation of Catholic church (and church school) officials to the values that prevail in San Francisco and most modern Western cultures.

You begin by declaring that I am wrong, but you don’t specify what I am wrong about. I’m guessing you are referring to my last statement, that the church will sooner or later embrace universal human rights and the morality of equality without regard to race, creed, gender or sexuality.

Your challenge brings to light an erroneous assumption on my part. I should not have said that the church will someday embrace these rights and this morality. A good portion of what you call the Body of Christ already does! What I should have said is that my guess is that more and more of the rest of these people will come to do so as well. Ever since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was composed, the trend has been, with occasional backsliding, in a single direction – toward the embrace of democracy and equality. That is as true inside your church as in the world at large.

You may disagree, and you are probably right that there will always be a holdout of diehard authoritarians willing to support with their last dying breath the claims to power of the patriarchal hierarchy.

But do you seriously want to be among those whose dying breath is exhaled around the words, “Don’t pray with Protestants” or “Don’t let women have an equal say” or “Keep those horny teenagers away from the Eucharist!”

Your church has a magnificent potential for uplift and compassion. Why would you reduce a house of “many dwelling places” to a single cramped shack of smug zealots with narrow horizons and limited imaginations?

He then wrote again, on June 6th.  He wrote two entries.  I have combined them into one, and this time interspersed my comments with his.  His words are in italics; mine are not.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a fundamentally cosmopolitan Humanistic document. Although there is much to be respected and applauded within its text, I do not consider it to determine morality. 

Whether you recognize it as a moral code or not, it is one.  You have a moral code which you follow based on the teachings of your church as you understand them.  But the concept of morality and ethics far predates your church.  The world’s major religions all have well-established codes of morality in addition to their creation myths, liturgical practices and cultural traditions.  Yours is but one of those.  And there is no shortage of non-religious based ethical systems as well.  You could benefit from opening your windows and looking out.  And take notice, when you do, of how well the world functions outside of the reach of your church.  And notice too how many of the practices of your church other people consider downright immoral.

Why? I believe no human ideology, even one supported by myriad great statesmen, diplomats, jurists and philosophers, backed by international agreements and many pieces of human positive law, can trump God's Word in moral terms.

Trump?  You think this is a contest?  A my daddy can beat up your daddy test of moral codes?  You really ought not to make the mistake of thinking your beliefs are superior to the beliefs of others.  There is no way such a claim will ever hold water, since it is based on self-reference.  If it suits you to enter this belief system, by all means have at it.  But give the world a break and recognize there are things out there in the universe beyond your knowledge and experience.  By shutting the door to thought the way you do, you remove the opportunity to question and to learn, to rethink your assumptions and expand your horizons.

Just as a national government making something legal or a culture widely embracing it as socially acceptable does not necessarily change its moral status, making something an international human right has no bearing on whether it is SIN!

Sin is a religious concept.  Few people outside your religion care one whit about sin.  It’s your way to police yourself (and others, unfortunately).  It has no place in public discourse, unless you close the doors and windows to the world and talk only amongst yourselves.

No, it is not "as true" that "my church" is included in the general egalitarian shift as for mainline Christians and secularists. This is mostly due to the fact it was set up relatively recently as a bulwark for Bible-believers in large part to offer sanctuary from the dangerously compromised mainline and the ever-leftward "trend" of drift in secular society. I do not deny that most churches would be swimming in this direction even if they never embrace the farther fringes of the postmodern liberal project; however, there are exceptions.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in your sentence “No, it is not "as true" that "my church" is included in the general egalitarian shift as for mainline Christians and secularists”.  I think you mean your church is not part of the general egalitarian shift shared by most mainline Christians and secularists, right?  Well, that’s true, but only to people who define your church narrowly, as the Roman structure, which came in fairly late in church history as a power grab, and did serious damage to the body of believers who were (and still are) trying their best to live according to the teachings of a great moral leader.  Members of this oligarchy stole the church, made it into an old-boy’s club, and continue to this day pretending to be entitled to speak with the voice of God.  I said earlier that I don’t really care how you Catholics fight amongst yourselves, but that’s not quite true.  Over time, I have come away from being disgusted by what I thought was the church (the organization as you appear to be defining it) and come to recognize it is actually what the people who collectively call themselves Catholic say it is – a body of believers, a spiritual place many call home.  The pope, the curia, the cardinals and the bishops may want to think they are the church, but more and more Catholics have spoken out and put a lie to their claims.  So what you said above is factually inaccurate.  Most Catholics have, in fact, joined with other Christians and secularists in embracing the values we have come to call humanistic enlightenment values.  And that’s a wonderful thing.

"Do I want to be among those whose dying breath is exhaled..." Well I would prefer if there was no need for conflict but this is a fallen world and so the choice is to fight (spiritually and culturally) or surrender...I'm not the white flag type. So, faute de mieux, yes if not on the specific hyperbolic terms you put it in.

I’m sorry.  I don’t know you, but I would wish you a better fate.

"Uplift" is a slippery word. The Church is NOT for the purpose of making people feeeeel better about themselvvvves *California drawl* but getting people saved, instructing them in discipleship, fellowshipping to worship the Lord corporately, and living Godly for Jesus, the Church, their family and the wider world. Some people who speak of "uplift" want to turn the Church into a man-centric (not Christ/Cross-centric), psycho babbling affective education facility. I say no Sir, there is Esalen and whatever other ungodly third-force institution if you want humanistically defined "uplift"...which often includes "affirmation" of inappropriate beliefs, values and choices. We would not "affirm" your gay lifestyle nor your anti-Christian worldview at our church(affirm! to think professed men of God use that word in respect of evil!)

I’m sorry you have never known the uplift that comes from the Catholic church.  I haven’t either, but I know many who have.  They speak of being lifted up by the Eucharist, the sense of community, the belief in a Savior.  It may not be the church’s main purpose, as you see it, but don’t sell it short.  It can be a wonderful thing.

You say you do not “affirm” my “gay lifestyle.”  My Lord, young man, what makes you think I give a shit?  First off, it’s not a lifestyle.  Secondly, shame on you for coming down on the way other people live their lives.  What arrogance you have!   If you want to see why people are running in all directions from your church, take a look in the mirror.  It’s that smug arrogance, that know-it-all sophomoric notion of being superior that drives people away.  Evil?  No, we’re not evil, most of us outside your narrow circle.  We’re doing the best we can, trying, failing and trying again to live life to the fullest, to do good and to be good.  Give us a break.

Compassion? AMEN to that! much of the work we do along with that of like-minded churches and ministries is profoundly rooted in and driven by compassion. There is a false dichotomy peddled by some ultra-libs between kind, caring "social gospel" mainline folk and harsh ignorant "fundies", based on their slander that anyone on the right politically or theologically is uncompassionate! I suspect often motivated by a wish to shift focus from their aberrant beliefs and conduct to their "enemies". 

Your last line is typical of what cosmopolitan-intersectionalist sophisticates have to say about small town folk who are not so indulgent of false doctrine, "self-fulfilment" and sensuous decadence.

“Cosmopolitan-intersectionalist”???  Sounds positively erotic.  I’ve never been labeled that before.  I think I like it.

“Indulgent of false doctrine”?  - Your certitude absolutely amazes me.  And still in your 20s, you say?  Do you think you have anything left to learn?

Are you really from a small town where people don’t appreciate self-fulfillment?  Don’t indulge in it from time to time?    Why would you – why would anyone - want to live in such a place?

Sensuous decadence?

Oh dear. 

As for Catholics and "San Francisco values", while the hierarchy and plenty of devout pro-traditional-family laypeople continue to stand firm on most issues stereotyped as "culture war"---they show zero church discipline much of the time, supposedly having a clear guideline for excommunication but it is hardly ever used since Vatican II.

One of precious few exceptions being Lefebvre, and SSPXers were excommunicated for being *too* conservative and in some cases anti-Semitic...I do not agree with or have close contact with that grouping & as a person of Jewish descent I take great issue with Shoah minimization and apparent support for a fascist party [French FN] in their ranks.

But then you have Michael Moore tweeting about attending Sunday Mass and using his ostensible Catholic faith to defend political positions (not that Barry Lynn or Norman Lear have called him out on it!) and for suggesting he be excommunicated a friend of mine was called EXTREMIST!

Extremist? Moore's worldview is not from any recognizable wing of Catholic orthodoxy...he is an out-and-out, bomb throwin, San Francisco values, ROBERT CROMEY-CARTER HEYWARD- KATE RAGSDALE wing Episcopal style sensualist who has said God created gay sex and enjoys watching it all, believes in sexual freedom, federal tax funded abortion on demand, even minor girls and post 20 weeks, says he yas no moral objection to drug use and supports legalizing (nearly) all of 'em attacked Giuliani for trying to restrain porn and stripping in NYC, likened Black conservatives to the US Nazi collaborator PoW in Slaughterhouse 5, compared Clarence Thomas to a slave and Scalia to KKK, blamed the Clinton impeachment on "obsessed" sexually "repressed" Republicans, provided affective education, values clarification & *sensitivity training encounter groups* to teens w/o parental involvement in the 70s (see "Davison Hotline"), slammed an abortion litmus test down on poor (profamily Catholic Dem) Bart Stupak's head in 2010!, advocates explicit sex ed and secret condom handouts in public schools, openly defends Jeremiah Wright, holds every person's diverse spiritual (non-)belief is valid FOR THEM so detests absolute Truth and proselytizers, says the Bible is to be taken for our self-improvement and not literally, applauds ACT-UP stunts, finds Bill Clinton and Barack Obama not pro-abortion *enough* for him...and somehow it's the person *questioning* whether he belongs in the RCC is extreme? I REALLY doubt it!

Until they start to crack down on radicals in the public eye, telling them "hey- this is America, if you really prefer Episcopal or U.C.C. "values" you can always use your religious liberty and find an affirming inclusive embrace in their arms, but if you wanna be a Catholic in good standing get repenting!"- the Catholic Church stands little chance of weathering the secular storm.

Feel better now?

Kinki no more

“Kinki Tours,” it said along the side of the bus.  And the bus stopped and out poured a whole bunch of folk all carrying bags marked “Kinki Nippon Tourist.”

Now I’ve seen everything, I remember thinking.  Bad enough you have to be a tourist, do you have to advertise that you are a tourist?  And do you have to announce to the whole world that you are on some kind of porno tour?

That was years ago, long before I went to Japan and became familiar with Kinki as the name of a region of Western Japan made up of seven prefectures, which include the cities of Kyoto, Osaka, Kobe and Nara, among others.

Kinky (with a y) is an English word that makes people laugh when they hear it.   It means something on the order of sexually perverted.  But in a funny and generally harmless way.  “Romantic,” they say, “is the use of a feather in foreplay.  “Kinky” is when you use the whole chicken.

After twenty-four years of life in Japan, you’d think the word would no longer catch my attention.  But it does.  Every time I encounter the place name as an adjective, I smile again at the sound.  “Kinki souvenirs,” “Kinki Regional Development Bureau,” “Shop Kinki!”  Endless possibilities.  “Kinki Rooftop Bar,” the sign says, and I imagine folk frolicking about topless and wearing combat boots. 

Lots of words which sound perfectly routine in one language take on obscene or other off-color connotations in another.  When “Vicks” started marketing their cough drops in Germany, they had to change the spelling to “Wicks” or come up with a whole new word, because “Vick” is pronounced “Fick” in German, and “fick” is the German word for “fuck.”  Similarly, Clairol had a similar problem with “Mist Stick” – “Mist” is the German word for “dung.”  Ford Pinto in Brazil found “pinto” means “small dick.”  Chevy Nova in Spanish means “no va (doesn’t run)”. 

For a while, Mitsubishi Motors marketed their Pajero in Argentina and other Spanish-speaking countries, until they realized they were selling “jack-offs.”

BBC News the other day reported that the folks in charge of Kinki University have concluded it's time to stop being an international joke.  I think it's probably more pragmatism than shame, however.  Until recently, the large university in East Osaka didn’t worry much about how its name sounded to foreigners.  It was, after all, the name of the region in which it was located.  But like many Japanese universities now suffering from a lower and lower number of applicants, they are beginning to look overseas for more foreign students.  Afraid advertising themselves as Kinki might put people off, they’ve decided to change their name to Kindai University. 

Changing a university’s name is no small matter, I should think.  All those records, all those signs that have to be changed.  All that letterhead!  And all that history and tradition stopped dead in its tracks.  Why go to all that trouble?   Do you see Denmark changing its “Speed Checkpoints” to accommodate English-speakers?

And, besides, why would foreign students not want to have it on their resume that they attended “Sexually Imaginative University?”

This little anecdote should fit in my now very large file of absurdities I compiled over the years to keep myself laughing instead of crying as I struggled to bridge the cultural gaps between where I came from and Japan, where I was making my home.  But actually it fits better into the category of the politics of language.

That may not be immediately obvious to most people.  But I worked in a university language department filled with rivalries and power struggles.  You would imagine people involved in the teaching and learning of foreign languages and cultures would be more cosmopolitan than most places. That was not the case. English traditionally dominates language departments in Japan, and that means more jobs for English teachers, fewer jobs for teachers of other languages.   They went to great efforts to force students in to other languages, but in the end, students understood the practical value of English as an international language and pressured us accordingly.

Now, in retirement, when people ask me how my life is going, and whether I miss the teaching, I invariably say that I miss my students but not the politics of the work environment.  Some of the acrimony of faculty meetings sent me and other teachers of English running for martinis, a bottle of wine, a hike in the woods, anything to clear the hostility from our lives.  One Japanese teacher of French actually suggested we teachers of English, particularly the Americans, were little more than "cultural imperialists."   Another suggested we might be allowed to teach English literature, but language teaching should be taught by native Japanese, so they could keep the imperialism out of the classroom.

That was a couple decades ago now.  I don't want to generalize to the entire Japanese population - there are nationalists in all corners of the country and elsewhere in the world equally concerned about the uncertainties that come with outside cultural influence on their culture, and language classes make an easy target.

But the language imperialism charge came immediately to mind as I read the news about the goings on at Kinki Dai.  (Or Kindai, as it will now be called.)  (Dai = daigaku = university)  Wish I had had that example to use in those faculty room discussions.  To illustrate that in the end, so many of our battles over culture come down to money.

I took things too seriously at times.  It annoyed me no end that they could not see that I was far more critical of American foreign policy than they were, and my criticisms had more substance.  I was a peacenik.   I was actually thinking in those days of getting my permanent residence in Japan.  (I did become a permanent resident, actually.)   An imperialist was not who I was.  They were judging me by my outward characteristics.  It was prejudice in its rawest form.  My goals were not to make little Americans out of my students; it was, ironically, to help them go out into the world and make of their lives whatever they wanted to, including selling even more Toyotas to Americans, if that was what would make them happy.  (I have only owned Toyotas for the past thirty years, by the way.)

If the decision were up to me, I'd say they should keep the Kinki name.  Seriously.  It's a name that goes back centuries.  Can you imagine Texans changing their name to suit Chinese students in their midst?

But maybe, in the end, the folks worried about the spread of English around the world were right. It may not be the Americans forcing the Japanese to take their cue from them.  This is a Japanese decision, after all.  But it may also be an illustration of how, when the guy who is powerless anticipates what the guy in power wants, and does it before he even asks - that's when you know the bullies (imperialists) have won.


Addendum, June 3, 2014:

I note from Japanese sources that I misunderstood what Kinki was actually doing.  They do not intend to change the name of the university.  It will go on being called Kinki Daigaku in Japanese. Only when corresponding in English will they avoid the name, and use Kindai instead.

Also, the new policy is not due to go into effect until 2016.

Photo credits:

KinkiRooftop Special

KinkiUniversity 

 FartKontrol 

 KNT