NOTE: Updated Tuesday, September 20, 2011.
I've come across a number of well-written responses to what's been described as the "soft bigotry" of local Roman Catholic priest James Livingston's op-ed in yesterday's Star Tribune. It was written in response to a previous op-ed in the paper – one that I highlight here.
Livingston heads the local chapter of the Courage apostolate. That fact, along with the title of his op-ed ("Some People Can Make the Gay Go Away"), probably tells you all you need to know about his perspective on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Still, for the truly horrendous details, you can go here. (But don't forget to come back and read the following responses – the first three and the last four of which are from the Star Tribune.)
_______________________
It is a cold comfort that Rev. James Livingston is "glad" for Ron Bates' acceptance of himself as a gay Christian, loved and created by God, seeing how he spends most of his commentary insinuating that Bates is an immoral weakling.
It may be that some find a balance between their conflicting sexual orientation and precept of religious chastity that Livingston espouses, but it has not been the case for members of Livingston's own Courage/Faith In Action group.
As Lavender Magazine's John Townsend showed through his investigative journalism outing the Lutheran anti-gay pastor Tom Brock last year, Courage/FIA is definitely not working for many.
But if we take that gladness and Livingston's statement that "traditional marriage" was an "imprudent start" for Bates at face value, then we cannot accept the conjecture that his form of marriage is part of some "universal moral law," as Livingston is then condoning a break from that law.
It is certainly part of a religious tradition of which Livingston, Bates, myself and many others are a part, but that tradition has changed many times throughout the years, away from subjugating women and justifying slavery, and most radically when Jesus came down to Earth to absolve sinners and affirm the primacy of love.
If, in a civil society, we can get past controlling the "sex" part of sexual orientation and marriage, then we can celebrate the love between rational, consenting adults, continue to act ethically and stop casting stones willy-nilly.
– Carl Atiya Swanson
Minneapolis
Livingston's commentary is an example of a problematic type of "soft bigotry" that many exhibit toward the LGBT community. Although he purports to show compassion to people with same-sex attraction, it is predicated on the assumption that such attraction is a dysfunction to be suppressed and corrected.
Many who oppose gay rights hide behind supposed religious truths and are unable to explain what actual harm homosexuality poses to society. It is not dissimilar to arguments used by those opposed to the civil-rights movement in the 1960s.
– Patrick Finnegan
Minneapolis
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, the Star Tribune does not have to publish every illogical, ill-conceived, bigoted and fact-free bit of insane drivel that comes its way, whether it's from a religious figure or not.
From its assertion that much same-sex attraction comes from "loneliness or lack of confidence" to its ridiculous claim that gay identity is being forced onto young people who are then imprisoned by it, Livingston's article is filled with nonsense with zero basis in reality.
If I wrote a piece describing how my magic beans cure cancer, the Star Tribune would refuse to print it, because I would have no evidence to back up my claims, and the presence of such a piece in a respected newspaper could, in fact, be dangerous, as cancer patients leave hospitals to try my beans.
Well, Star Tribune, allowing Livingston to make these false statements in your pages is similarly dangerous, and the blood of gay teen suicides and the victims of anti-gay attacks is now on your hands.
– Ben Smith
Minneapolis
The problem with Catholic [clerical] leaders like Livingston is that they are only concerned with their own beliefs about “spiritual” health, so they ignore and deny any research about what promotes psychological health if it compromises those beliefs. Contrary to his claims, nobody knows the exact roots of their own or anybody’s sexual orientation, but psychologists understand there to be a complex mix of genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation. The medical community agrees that any attempt to deny or repress one’s sexual orientation can cause psychological harm, but it is exactly that harm that Livingston advocates through his ministry.
Perhaps that is why the last line of his article may be his most offensive: “Minnesota citizens, you can support traditional marriage and be a friend to persons with same-sex attractions.” Trying to convince someone to hate who they are so you don’t feel guilty about voting against their rights isn’t really what “friends” do.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are not broken. We are not in need of repair.
In a recent op-ed, Rev. James Livingston argues that reparative therapy can be used to change peoples' sexual orientations and suggests that Minnesotans can "support traditional marriage and be a friend to persons with same-sex attractions."
In reality, many people of faith affirm the inherent human dignity of all people, including those with LGBT identities. They recognize that, instead of asking how we can change a child's identity, we should ask how we can change our world so children will be supported as they are and be free to make the best choices for their own lives as they become adults.
Every major medical and mental health organization in the country has condemned reparative therapy. Young people subjected to it are more likely to suffer depression, anxiety, and shame and to commit suicide. In short, reparative therapy can kill.
The phrase "reparative" implies a need to change. Those who advocate reparative therapy seem to believe that LGBT people are somehow dangerous, and until they are "fixed," LGBT people should be excluded from civil institutions like marriage.
Rev. Livingston is wrong: true friendship means valuing friends for who they are. We cannot call ourselves friends to LGBT people if we work to deny their love, erase their identities, and exclude them from marriage.
– Rebecca Waggoner
Anti-Violence Program Director, OutFront Minnesota
and
Rev. Oby Ballinger
OutFront Minnesota People of Faith Roundtable
In recent years, attacks against homosexuality have become less overt. People have learned that shouting vicious things and physically attacking people are no longer effective ways to win support for the anti-gay cause, so they mask their hate in seemingly innocent statements.
As both the Rev. James Livingston (in his Sept. 12 article) and Donna M. Ferber (in her letter to the editor on Sept. 15) have done. To quote Ferber, "one may support traditional marriage and still care about those with same-sex attraction."
What is frightening is how casually homosexuality is referred to as if it were some type of condition. As a gay man, I can assure you that it is not. I can also assure you that you cannot be for gay rights or care about gay people and be against gay marriage. That's not how it works.
Just because you don't use hateful words doesn't mean you are not a bigot. I'm sure there were a lot of people in the early 1960s who said things like, "It's not that I have anything against African-Americans, I just don't think they should be able to vote."
I think we can all agree that is a bigoted statement. If you think that homosexuals do not deserve a fundamental human right, you are a bigot, even if you think that you are not. Being polite about hate is still hate.
– Alec Barniskis
Minneapolis
I have been following the recent discussion in the paper about homosexual relationships with some interest, because of my fealty to the church, and was excited once Livingston weighed in. As I have been following the discourse, I have noticed a fundamental flaw.
The problem, as I see it, is that there really is not an argument happening here; rather, two groups of people are talking past each other and calling foul. In order for there to be any real discussion, there first must be some shared axioms and agreed-upon first principles, which I fear are not present and thus no real dialogue can commence.
Perhaps we should turn this debate to several more fundamental problems, including, but not exclusive to, what are our ethical foundations for our positions in this debate and what is our metaphysics (if any) to support these claims. Only once we have done this can a rational debate on this topic commence.
Now turning to support Livingston: We must look at his position in light of the rest of his moral claims. He cited, and justly so, that natural law is the foundation of Catholic morality.
Now, if you are going to critique him for his position, either do so on his own terms, testing for internal consistency, or argue against natural law. Neither has occurred in this forum in any concise and substantial manner. In regard to his consistency, his claims of chastity apply to all people and make no exemption.
– Michael Musielewicz
Minneapolis
[Michael Musielewicz] complain[s] that the exchange of opinions about an Opinion article written by the Rev. James Livingston lacks a common ethical foundation and "shared axioms."
The situation is really quite simple: The Catholic Church occupies a political position on marriage that is at variance with the concept of basic human rights.
Members of the church may support this position as expressed by the letter writer, but it is incumbent on the state to remain neutral so that followers of other faith traditions have the the same access to the legal rights associated with marriage as do Catholics, Lutherans and those in other well-known denominations.
"Equal rights" is a radical concept. It means that no matter whom you are or what your gender identity, sexual preference or religious faith may be, you can participate fully in public life. Nothing metaphysical about this.
Faith communities are free to set their own standards for members, including rules for marriage within their system of beliefs. Writing these rules into a secular document such as a state constitution is oppression.
– George Hutchinson
Minneapolis
[Michael Musielewicz] states that there has been no concise and substantial argument against what he and Livingston refer to as "natural law," which apparently militates against same-sex relationships in their minds. Setting aside whether or not such a thing as "natural law" exists, let's start with the assumption that it does exist, and on their terms.
The most relevant definitions of "natural" include "existing or formed by nature" (as opposed to artificial) and "based on the state of things in nature."
Unless I'm missing something, both heterosexual and homosexual relationships both have existed and have been the state of things in nature since our ancestors began recording history.
That homosexual relationships are not "normal" – as in "conforming to the standard or common type" – cannot be easily debated. But it seems obvious that "natural law" has by definition made room for both the homosexual and the heterosexual in our species.
And if it does so, on what basis is a minority denied the rights granted to the majority?
I understand that many heterosexual people are uncomfortable with homosexual behavior. But please recognize that this discomfort is based on a bias, albeit a culturally conditioned bias. But that does in no way make the bias "natural" nor justify the denial of rights.
– John F. Hetterick
Plymouth
See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• When Quackery Goes Mainstream
• No Place for Dialogue in Archdiocesan Newspaper
• "Curing" Homosexuality
• What Scientists in the UK Are Saying About Homosexuality
• It's Official: APA Opposes "Reparative Therapy"
• The Dreaded "Same-Sex Attracted" View of Catholicism
• Be Not Afraid, You Can Be Happy and Gay
• Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Courage
• The Many Forms of Courage (Part I)
• The Many Forms of Courage (Part II)
• The Many Forms of Courage (Part III)
• The Real Meaning of Courage
• Celebrating Our Sanctifying Truth
• Beyond Courage
• Debunking NARTH (Part I)
• Debunking NARTH (Part II)
• The Many Manifestations of God's Loving Embrace
Why would a Catholic university host a public conference on [the topic of homosexuality], given the apparent impasse between Catholic teaching and wider culture on LGBT issues? For one thing, Catholic universities are dedicated to seeking knowledge and reflecting on value – scientific, humanistic, moral, and spiritual – wherever these might be found, both knowledge for its own sake, and for the good of human communities. Moreover, as Pope Benedict XVI recently underscored, everyone dedicated to discovering what’s true, and to living lives of love ‘in’ truth (Caritas in Veritate) requires the good student’s habit of attentive, capacious, and responsive listening. Discovering and hewing to what’s true and valuable demands a cultivated readiness to attend, to consider, and to respond; this is, at root, what it means to obey – obedire, to take heed of, to listen. From this ministry of listening to and for truth and value, especially among vulnerable neighbors or marginalized voices, Benedict writes, nothing, not even religion, can excuse. “If in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be ‘devout’ and to perform my ‘religious duties’, then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely ‘proper’, but loveless.” (Deus Caritas Est #18)
