tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post5760435366964367659..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: "Conversion Therapy" and the Pseudo-Science of NARTHMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-53365774731784949132008-01-30T07:01:00.000-06:002008-01-30T07:01:00.000-06:00Michael,Does this strike you as ill-informed and d...Michael,<BR/><BR/>Does this strike you as <EM>ill-informed and dehumanizing ideology</EM>?<BR/><BR/>http://narth.com/docs/whatif.htmlCDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-28685554780128285652008-01-27T17:40:00.000-06:002008-01-27T17:40:00.000-06:00Hi Clayton,Thanks for stopping by The Wild Reed an...Hi Clayton,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by <EM>The Wild Reed</EM> and sharing your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>As to your first comment, I agree with you completely: the ill-informed and dehumanizing ideology of organizations such as NARTH is incompatible with the “info-ethics” that the Catholic Church espouses.<BR/><BR/>With regard your second comment: If there’s nothing “materially different” between the positions articulated by Archbishop Roach and later archbishops, why then, in the words of David McCaffrey, has the “competent and compassionate ministry [that was] once enjoyed by local LGBT Catholics and their families, virtually disappeared”? And how do we know this? Well, just talk to LGBT people themselves and their families.<BR/><BR/>As to the “essential differences” between Archbishop Roach and Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt, perhaps these can be discerned in the following excerpt from the <A HREF="http://www.progressivecatholicvoice.org/#Dialoguing" REL="nofollow">latest</A> “Dialoguing with the Archbishop” column of <A HREF="http://www.progressivecatholicvoice.org" REL="nofollow"><EM>The Progressive Catholic Voice</EM></A> online journal.<BR/><BR/>These monthly “dialoguing” columns are written by the editorial team of <EM>The Progressive Catholic Voice</EM> in response to various points raised by Archbishop Nienstedt in his weekly column in <EM>The Catholic Spirit</EM> (an “official” publication of the archdiocese that, incidentally, <A HREF="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2007/11/no-place-for-dialogue-in-archdiocesan.html" REL="nofollow">bars dialogue</A>!)<BR/><BR/>To anyone familiar with the leadership style of the former Archbishop John Roach, they would know that the following would have <EM>never</EM> been directed towards him. It is, however, appropriately directed towards the leadership style of Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt, to whom it is indeed addressed:<BR/><BR/>“What puzzles us most is your emphasis on dividing people – those who go to church on Sunday and those who do not; those who confess to a priest, those who do not; those who believe particular faith propositions and those who do not. All faith propositions are attempts by humans to pin down the unfathomable mystery of God with us. Isn’t it important to acknowledge the inadequacy of all such human attempts at truth claims about God? Wouldn’t it be better to allow people more freedom to choose different forms within the sacramental practices of the church so that they could find unity in spirit rather than in uniformity of action and propositional belief?”<BR/><BR/>As I said, most Catholics in the archdiocese would not characterize the words and actions of Archbishop Roach as “divisive.” Nor would they have considered posing the above questions to him. Sadly, it’s a very different story with Archbishop Nienstedt.<BR/><BR/>The “difference” isn’t so much in “content” but emphasis and leadership style. Archbishop Roach (and for a while, Archbishop Flynn) “allow[ed] people more freedom to choose different forms within the sacramental practices of the church.” The wonderful diversity that resulted in this can still be seen in the archdiocese: in the fact that there exists both a St. Agnes parish and a St. Joan of Arc parish. For many Catholics, this range, this <EM>diversity</EM> is a sign of a healthy, <EM>living</EM> Church.<BR/><BR/>And these “different forms” weren’t restricted to “sacramental practices,” but also extended to pastoral ones. Thus an archdiocesan liaison sat on the <A HREF="http://www.cpcsm.org" REL="nofollow">CPCSM</A> board, and CPCSM itself was invited to help inform and shape various pastoral initiatives relating to the gifts and needs of LGBT persons and their families. People felt that their experiences and insights concerning God in their lives and relationships were being listened to, respected, and honored. Not so now.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this all comes back to that critical question: “What does it mean to be Catholic?”<BR/><BR/>I appreciate Australian religious commentator Chris McGillion’s response to this question. As I noted in a previous <EM>Wild Reed</EM> post, McGillion observes that there are two ways to respond to such a question:<BR/><BR/>“One answer,” he says, “is to employ the faith to inform one’s decisions. That’s an understanding that is messy and uncertain but it is also creative and conducive to the development of responsible adults.”<BR/><BR/>And the second response? Well, it’s one that McGillion says folks like <A HREF="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2007/06/two-sided-catholic-crisis.html" REL="nofollow">Cardinal Pell</A> (and I’d say Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt) seem to prefer, and it says that “to be Catholic means having ready-made answers universally applied to the dilemmas that life inevitably invites.”<BR/><BR/>Such an understanding, says McGillion, “is neat and tidy but also potentially stultifying.”<BR/><BR/>“More worrying,” he writes, “is that this is an answer that betrays an acute doubt about whether God is involved in some ongoing sense in human affairs.”<BR/><BR/>Now, what do I make of Archbishop Roach’s remarks concerning the possible dismissal of archdiocesan staff who “seek to teach in ways contrary to church morality”? To be honest, I sense in such remarks an effort to be seen to be “toeing the party line,” which, for Roman Catholic bishops, can only ever be about that second response to the question on what it means to be Catholic.<BR/><BR/>And that’s the problem with the “institutional Church,” indeed, of <EM>any</EM> monolithic and stagnant structure*: people within them (especially those charged with maintaining the stagnation, such as bishops – unless, of course, they’re incredibly courageous and alive like Bishop Thomas Gumbleton) <EM>have</EM> to “toe the party line” regardless of whether they themselves believe this line. What a terrible price that must exact on a person’s soul!<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>Michael<BR/><BR/><BR/>* As <A HREF="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2006/12/keeping-spark-alive.html" REL="nofollow">Chuck Lofy</A> reminds us: “The temptation for any form, image, or organized structure is to become monolithic; to become crystallized and to become an end unto itself. In some ways that is what’s going on with the church right now. The function of any monolith can become primarily to continue itself in its current crystallized, opaque form. Yet Jesus said the form profits nothing. It’s the spirit that gives life.”<BR/><BR/>Amen!Michael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-80285223776812618642008-01-27T09:25:00.000-06:002008-01-27T09:25:00.000-06:00I don't think there is anything materially differe...I don't think there is anything materially different between the position articulated by Archbishop Roach and that of coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt.<BR/><BR/>Can you explain where there are essential differences? In particular, what do you make of Archbishop Roach's statement regarding activism vs. the Church's teaching as it relates to Archdiocesan staff?CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-16947977029110244672008-01-27T09:20:00.000-06:002008-01-27T09:20:00.000-06:00Wow.All of this doesn't seem compatible with the "...Wow.<BR/><BR/>All of this doesn't seem compatible with the "info-ethics" that the Church is calling for in its new message for World Communications Day...<BR/><BR/>http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20080124_42nd-world-communications-day_en.html<BR/><BR/>"Indeed, the media, taken overall, are not only vehicles for spreading ideas: they can and should also be instruments at the service of a world of greater justice and solidarity. Unfortunately, though, they risk being transformed into systems aimed at subjecting humanity to agendas dictated by the dominant interests of the day. This is what happens when communication is used for ideological purposes or for the aggressive advertising of consumer products. While claiming to represent reality, it can tend to legitimize or impose distorted models of personal, family or social life...."CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.com