An Exciting Endeavor

No, I’m not talking about turning 44, but about how this past Sunday members of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Work/Study Group met at my home to continue planning our part in the 2010 Synod of the Baptized, “Claiming Our Place at the Table.”


Responding to areas of disconnect

As I’ve mentioned previously, a number of CCCR work/study groups have been established – each focused on an area of disconnect between current church practices and the church’s mission to manifest God’s love. These areas of disconnect include: Church Authority and Governance, Bishop Selection, Clericalism, Communication in a Polarized Community, Church as a Community of Equals, Catholic/Christian Identity, Catholic Spirituality, Emerging Church, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, Social Justice, and Faith Formation of Children and Youth.

At the 2010 Synod each work/study group will present recommendations for church practices and policies that align with the Gospel message. Those present at the synod will also work together to develop an ongoing strategy within the local church to communicate these recommendations – recommendations for the building of a Catholic culture of radical equality, unabashed inclusivity, and transforming love. By changing church practices we envision transforming the culture of our local church into one that faithfully lives out its mission. In doing all of this we aim to model a type of participation led by a coalition of the baptized that will serve as a template for church reform within dioceses across the country.


An alternative theology

Five of us from the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Work/Study Group met at my home on Sunday. We shared a meal, discussed the book we’re reading together (The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology by Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler*) and brainstormed ideas for practices that, if implemented in the local church, would ensure the manifestation of the gospel values of equality, inclusivity, and love. In the view of the wider coalition, such manifestation comprises the mission of the church.

One thing that we all agreed on was that the recommendations we come up with and eventually present next September at the 2010 Synod should convey an alternative theology on human sexuality to the one currently being promulgated by the Vatican. This “alternative” theology would be open to being shaped by both faith and reason, i.e., by the presence of God within the lived experiences of all, and by the insights on sexual orientation and gender offered by the sciences.

We also discussed the idea of developing a list of inconsistencies within the Vatican’s current theology of sexuality. Such inconsistencies have been termed by Catholic author Garry Wills as examples of “intellectual dishonesty.” An example would be the church’s allowing of couples past the age of procreation – or where one or both persons are sterile – to marry, while at the same time the church is insisting that every sex act must be open to procreation.

In addition, we discussed educating ourselves about transgender issues, and decided that we would ask a local couple – a woman and transgendered man – to come and share their story with us.

Finally, we discussed some possible recommendations that even at this early stage of our work/study group process seem obvious, e.g., the practice within and by the church of distinguishing between sacramental marriage and civil marriage; the practice of a respecting the civil unions of all people – gay and straight; the practice of regular meetings between chancery officials and the LGBT community in which a mutual exchange of ideas, experiences and insights can be shared; the practice of archdiocesan-wide listening circles wherein Catholics can actually get to meet and know LGBT individuals and families, thus dispelling erroneous and damaging stereotypes and fallacies about LGBT lives, relationships and families; the practice of referring to LGBT people as “LGBT” people rather than as “people with same-sex attractions.” This last recommendation respects the basic courtesy of allowing individuals to identify and name themselves.

As you can see, making the case for these types of recommendations we will require a theology of human sexuality above and beyond that which the official church is currently prepared to explore, let alone embrace. Yet it’s a very different story within the church as “people of God.” Most Catholics already are living an alternative theology of sexuality to that dictated by the Vatican. As Simon Rosser has noted: “Whether it’s homosexuality, contraception, premarital sex, divorce, masturbation, or HIV prevention, the official Church position is now so extreme, so negative, so ultra-conservative, and ill-informed, that I’m confident that less than 5 percent of Catholics actually believe or follow Catholic sexual teaching.”


An exciting endeavor

In short, an “alternative” theology already exists; we, as members of the CCCR Work/Study Group on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, are well aware that we don’t have to create it. It’s not only already being lived at the grassroots, but it’s been developed and articulated for decades by many highly respected Catholic theologians and scholars. We see our job as researching the writings of these theologians and scholars so as to find support for the recommendations we would like to see implemented within our local church. And, of course, our research will no doubt inspire us to come up with additional recommendations. To use the words of Salzman and Lawler, we’ll be exploring the “methodological and anthropological developments that invite a reconsideration of [the church’s sexual] norms and their justification.” It’s an exciting endeavor that we’re undertaking, to be sure.

I’ll conclude this post by sharing an insightful excerpt from the prologue of Salzman and Lawler’s The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology. This particular excerpt identifies and discusses the “intellectual conversion” that has and continues to take place with regard to the “tradition of Catholic sexual teaching.” The authors note that this type of conversion “reflects, stimulates, and affects moral and religious conversion.” Put another way, faith and morality can and should be capable of being informed and shaped by reason. They also observe that this intellectual conversion is reflected in a “disconnect between many of the Magisterium’s absolute proscriptive sexual norms and the methodological and anthropological developments explicitly recognized and endorsed throughout Catholic tradition, especially since the Second Vatican Council.”

Salzman and Lawler contend that, as noted above, “this conversion is marked by methodological and anthropological developments that invite a reconsideration of norms and their justification.”

____________________________________

The methodological developments include a fundamental shift from a primarily classicist worldview to a primarily historically conscious worldview. The classicist worldview asserts that reality is static, necessary, fixed, and universal. The method utilized, anthropology formulated, and norms taught within this worldview are timeless, universal, and immutable, and the acts condemned by these norms are always so condemned.

Historical consciousness, grounded in existentialism, fundamentally challenges this view of reality. According to the historically conscious worldview, reality is dynamic, evolving, changing, and particular. The method utilized, anthropology formulated, and norms taught within this worldview are contingent, particular, and changeable, and the acts condemned by these norms are morally evaluated in terms of evolving human knowledge and understanding.

The shift from the classicist to the historically conscious worldview is reflected, for example, in the Magisterium’s endorsement of the historical-critical method for interpreting scripture articulated in Divino afflante spiritu and Dei verbum, which requires that scriptural texts be read in the “literary forms” of the writer’s “time and culture.” Through this method is clearly established and marks an explicit shift in the Catholic tradition in how scripture is to be read, interpreted, and applied to ethical issues, magisterial teaching continues to proof-text scripture to justify absolute norms condemning sexual acts, which reflects the exegetical method of the moral manuals rather than the historical-critical methods of recent tradition.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, references Genesis 19:1-29, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, as a scriptural foundation for the absolute prohibition of homosexual acts. Most biblical scholars, however, relying upon the historical-critical method, assert that the central meaning of this passage is about hospitality or homosexual rape and has virtually no relevance to the discussion of people with a homosexual orientation in monogamous, committed, loving relationships. Though the Magisterium espouses the historical-critical method for interpreting scripture and advocates utilizing other methodological resources such as the sciences to formulate its teachings, it fails to fully consider and integrate the normative implications of those methodological developments into its teaching, especially with regard to many absolute sexual norms. It continues to cite certain scriptural passages to condemn many sexual acts, whereas its own method indicates tht these passages are peripheral, if not irrelevant, to the acts it is condemning. The historical-critical method does not support this classicist approach to justifying norms.

A similar disconnect exists between sexual anthropological developments in Catholic tradition and the formulation and justification of absolute norms. Gaudium et spes marks a radical evolution in Catholic sexual teaching and, by implication, the sexual anthropology reflected in this teaching, by eliminating the language of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage. Before the Second Vatican Council, procreation was the primary end of marriage and union between spouses was the secondary end of marriage. In Gaudium et spes, hierarchical language for the two ends of marriage is rejected and “the nature of the human person and his acts” is posited as the foundational principle for harmonizing the ends of marriage. This marked a fundamental shift and development in Catholic sexual teaching and anthropology, but there is little evidence that the Magisterium has fully incorporated this shift into its sexual anthropology or into its formulation and justification of norms. As we will demonstrate throughout this book, the emphasis in its teaching continues to be on the “nature” of the act rather than on the “nature” of the human person and his or her acts.


* Salzman and Lawler note that they intend their book to be “part of a genuine dialogue,” as they believe that “genuine and respectful dialogue about sexual morality, and indeed about all that is involved in the life of Christian discipleship, is sorely needed to clarify Christian truth today.” Yes, it seems the perfect book for our work/study group!

Above (from left): Mary Beth, David, Joe, and Henry
- October 25, 2009.

For my first report on CCCR’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Work/Study Group, click here.


For previous Wild Reed post concerning CCCR, see:
The Catholic Coalition for Church Reform
Many Voices, One Church
“Something Exciting and Joyous”

See also the related Wild Reed posts:
A Time to Rethink the Basis and Repair the Damage
The Call to Be Dialogical Catholics
Stop in the Name of Discriminatory Ideology

Recommended Off-site Links:
Work/Study Groups Underway - Michael Bayly (Progressive Catholic Voice, June 12, 2009).
In What Sense Are We Progressive Catholics? - Progressive Catholic Voice (February 10, 2009).
CCCR’s 2010 Synod: A Progress Report - Michael Bayly (Progressive Catholic Voice, July 23, 2009).
Chancery Issues Statement on CCCR - Progressive Catholic Voice (August 12, 2009).
CCCR Responds to Censure from Chancery - Progressive Catholic Voice (August 13, 2009).
The Church’s Mission: Turned Upside-down by Its Culture? - Paula Ruddy (Progressive Catholic Voice, September 1, 2009).
CCCR’s 2010 Synod: A Second Progress Report - Michael Bayly (Progressive Catholic Voice, October 14, 2009).

Do Ask, Do Tell

First Lieutenant Dan Choi (right) kisses the man he loves during the recent National Equality March in Washington, D.C.

To hear Choi’s inspiring speech at the the October 11 National Equality March, click here.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Dan Choi Ordered Out of U.S. Military for Announcing His Homosexuality - Catherine Philp (London Times, July 2, 2009).
Dan Choi Explains “Why I Cannot Stay Quiet” - Christina Caron (ABC News, May 13, 2009).

A Demoralizing Process

In a recent open letter to James Lundholm-Eades, the co-chairs of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (myself included) highlight a number of concerns related to the St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocesan Strategic Planning Task Force, of which Lundholm-Eades serves as director.

This letter was first published online at the Progressive Catholic Voice, under the title “A Demoralizing Process.” Please note: To comment on it and/or to read the comments of others, please go to the PCV site. Thanks.

___________________________

October 19, 2009

James Lundholm-Eades, Task Force Director
Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis
328 West Kellogg Blvd
St Paul MN 55102


Dear Mr. Lundholm-Eades:

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people of the Archdiocese in addressing the problems we face as a local church.

We understand that both the Archbishop and the Task Force want to enable a vibrant Catholic community at the Archdiocesan level. We appreciate this goal since we believe the Church’s mission is to create a diocesan community that manifests God’s love for humanity as embodied in Jesus. So we too want a vibrant local church.

From our point of view, vibrancy in a human community is not possible unless all the relevant questions people want to ask are allowed on the table. The process for the strategic planning, although ostensibly an attempt to listen, is flawed in one essential aspect: it does not allow for the discussion of what the facts mean. What should be done will depend in large part on the analysis of the facts in relation to the Church’s mission.

To call the process “highly consultative” while barring questions about why the current situation is as it is will only demoralize people. We have heard many say they do not trust this process. Despite reassurances to the contrary, they say the decisions have already been made. They say that the emails, phone messages, and letters go into “a black hole.” People’s refusal to accept the obvious good will of the reassurances is symptomatic of the flaw in the process. We fear the goal of creating a vibrant local church will not be accomplished, though the resources may be efficiently re-allocated to look better on paper.

We request an Archdiocesan-wide discussion of all the relevant questions people want to ask. The meaning questions we would like to address are the following:

• Why do young adults abandon faith formation classes immediately after Confirmation? Why are such a large percentage of children offered no faith formation at all or, if the offer is made, why are they not accepting it?

• Why don’t two-thirds of registered Catholics go to Mass?

• Why are good and capable men not stepping up for ordination as priests?

• Why is celibacy required for the role of priest?

• Why aren’t women’s vocations to the ordained priesthood recognized and accepted?

• Why are third and fourth generation American Catholics leaving the church in great numbers?

• How is the money collected by the Archdiocese spent? We want the Archbishop to be accountable for his expenditures as the parishes are accountable for theirs.


The Task Force’s response when these questions are raised is that they are outside the scope of its mandate. Of course, they are, and that is the problem. We do not think that response will suffice.

If the Task Force requests the power from the Archbishop to facilitate such a discussion with the people of the Archdiocese and is denied that power, we suggest that as a matter of conscience you consider resigning en masse unless and until a full communication process is approved.

Though we are not experts, we have many ideas about how this process could be organized and will be happy to discuss them with you. There are many professional discussion facilitators in the Archdiocese who would, we are sure, be available to help. Some of the crucial elements are that all subjects be allowed to be discussed, no threats of job loss or excommunication will follow open discussion, and that representatives from all the people, not just those chosen by leadership, be involved in planning the discussion.

We think this is the only way to legitimate the process.

Sincerely yours,

Paula Ruddy
Michael Bayly
Bernie Rodel

Co-Chairs, Catholic Coalition for Church Reform


Recommended Off-site Links:
Catholic Coalition for Church Reform
The Progressive Catholic Voice

Autumn Hues

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
A Snowy October Day
Trempealeau
September Garden
Rainy October Afternoon (2008)
Out and About - October 2008
Out and About - October 2007
Out and About - September 2007

Images: Michael J. Bayly.

James Carroll on Roman Catholicism's Next Big Scandal

Catholic author James Carroll has written an excellent commentary on the “greatest failing” of the Roman Catholic bishops of Africa, that being the ignoring of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Carroll also provides a succinct historical perspective that explains how current Roman Catholic leadership is “trapped in a dilemma of its own making.” Following is an excerpt.

_____________________

Unlike Protestant and Muslim fundamentalisms, which are tied to fixed readings of holy texts, Catholic fundamentalism derives from a rigid defense of papal authority and boils down to a fixation on sexual morality. That has turned the Catholic hierarchy into a raging enemy of condom use — even when it comes to preventing the spread of AIDS.

When Pope Benedict visited Africa last March, he caused a storm of rebuke by asserting that condoms “increase the problem” of HIV/AIDS. The Catholic campaign against condoms has included a bishop claiming, according to a BBC report in 2007, that some condoms from Europe are purposely infected with HIV to kill Africans. Less crackpot, but still damaging are more typical claims, including one made last week by the synod general secretary, that condoms don’t work well in tropical heat. Church leaders assert that condoms give people a false sense of security, which leads them to have more sex, thereby increasing their chances of infection. All of this ignores what has become an international scientific consensus — that prevention is the key to stemming the epidemic, and condoms properly and consistently used are an essential part of prevention. “Properly and consistently used” is the operative phrase there, of course, and that assumes widespread programs of sex education, which are also inhibited by the Catholic hierarchy’s preference for the “just say no” abstinence approach.

The Catholic leadership is trapped in a dilemma of its own making. A brief history helps understand why. More than a century ago, when the pope lost his temporal authority over the papal territories in Italy and was humiliated by becoming a “prisoner in the Vatican,” Catholics rallied to him as never before. Only then, in 1870, was he declared infallible in “matters of faith and morals.” When the pope condemned “artificial contraception” as gravely sinful in 1930 while endorsing “natural” modes of preventing conception like “rhythm,” it was widely assumed by Catholics that he was speaking infallibly. Papal authority was tied directly to the most intimate choices Catholic men and women could make.

But ideas of “natural” changed. With the invention of the birth control pill (by a Catholic doctor) in the 1960s, church leaders openly began reconsidering the question. Pope John XXIII appointed a commission to study it, which led many Catholics to assume change was coming. The commission was almost unanimous in recommending that the ban be lifted, not only on the Pill, but on all forms of birth control. This was a watershed moment, showing that Catholic leaders, too, could grasp that static notions of “nature” could give way to more open and dynamic ideas. But what about the other Catholic prohibitions that depended on a pre-modern idea of “natural law” (including masturbation, and, especially, abortion)? More dramatically, what about all the Catholics who’d already been condemned to hell for using birth control? John’s successor, Paul VI, panicked, thinking a change would open a door to moral confusion and undermine papal authority. And so, against the commission’s recommendation, he reaffirmed the ban in 1968.

By then, the issue was no longer contraception: It was papal authority. Most Catholics had seen through the old logic and began to make their own decisions about birth control — the true undermining of authority. Popes and bishops ever since have played a double game — condemning birth control for the sake of “consistent teaching,” while taking for granted that they are being ignored both by lay people and the priests who hear their confessions.

The game became deadly when the tsunami of HIV/AIDS hit — especially in Africa, where Catholic bishops, presiding over a grassroots network of service and education, still have wide influence and prestige. Yet with their one-note insistence on abstinence as the only solution, they have been an obstacle to the urgent project of putting in place institutions of prevention, harm reduction, and safer sex. With logic that is anything but divine, Catholic leaders even forbid condom use for married couples with one infected partner. Meanwhile, Catholic priests, nuns, and lay workers who run health centers, schools, and orphanages throughout Africa quietly help clients understand how to reduce their risks of infection. A few bishops discretely promote condoms as a lesser evil, and one (Kevin Dowling of South Africa) has openly challenged the Vatican to change its teaching. But the overwhelming institutional weight of the Catholic Church continues to be thrown on the side of the virus. The result has been and will be the deaths of Africans. The virus of Catholic fundamentalism infects that beleaguered continent. At the Vatican, that, the church’s most grievous failure, is not being discussed.

To read James Carroll’s commentary in its entirety, click here.



For more of James Carroll at The Wild Reed, see:
James Carroll on Catholic Understandings of Truth (Part 1)
James Carroll on Catholic Understandings of Truth (Part 2)
James Carroll on Catholic Understandings of Truth (Part 3)
James Carroll on Catholic Understandings of Truth (Part 4)
James Carroll on Catholic Understanding of Truth (Part 5)
The Catholic Embrace of Americanism
A Brave Hope
A Christmas Reflection by James Carroll

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Pope Accused of “Distorting Scientific Evidence” on Condom Use
The Pope’s Message of Ignorance in Africa
Vatican Considers “Lesser of Two Evils”
Robert McClory on Humanae Vitae
Eugene Kennedy on Roman Catholicism’s “Post-Hierarchical Blues”

Mary Hunt on the "Theological Scandal" of the Vatican's Luring of Disaffected Anglicans

Catholic feminist theologian Mary Hunt has an incisive commentary published at ReligiousDispatches.org. It’s reprinted in its entirety below.

___________________________________

Vatican’s Come-Hither to Anglicans:
A Theological Scandal

By Mary Hunt
Religious Dispatches
October 22, 2009

While the Catholic Church is touting its warm welcome
to conservative Anglicans, it’s also a simple union
of those who reject gay and women’s ordination.

The Vatican’s new scheme to lure unhappy conservative Anglicans into the fold might have caught the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams off guard, but Catholics are not surprised by anything Rome does to shore up its market share. Conservative clergy, whose opposition to the ordination of women and LGBTQ people motivated them to split from the Anglican Communion, are now welcome to switch to Catholicism.

Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership.

A forthcoming Apostolic Constitution will spell out the details: Anglicans against ordination of women and LGBTQ people (like Bishop Gene Robinson, for example) are in full communion with Rome. Why bother, then, with individual conversion requirements or superfluous paperwork? These Anglicans can even make the transition as congregations or whole dioceses if they choose. They will be Catholics, but like the Eastern Rite Catholics they will do it their way. They can bring their own smells and bells and their Book of Common Prayer; even their own priests and bishops who will head the “Personal Ordinariates” which will function like dioceses. Come as you are, welcome to discriminate to your heart’s content in the name of God.

Rome changes not one whit on the arrival of the dissident Anglicans. It keeps in place its celibate clergy while welcoming married Anglican men with gusto. I predict more than a little consternation in the Roman ranks on that score. Current policy allows Lutheran and Episcopal married priests to jump the fence with the family in tow. Yet Roman Catholic men who wish to marry, never mind Roman Catholic women who might even agree to celibacy, are prohibited from being ordained. No Roman Catholic official seems to be able to say in a straightforward way why this is the case. They mumble something about tradition and certain distinctions. But the rhetoric is increasingly thin as they defend the indefensible against their own practice. It is not pretty.

Rome maintains its liturgy and theology wholly intact. Theological education stays the same, with the addition of small formation groups for Anglican candidates for the priesthood who can appreciate their own “patrimony” while also getting a good dose of Roman thought. In no way does the Vatican engage the issues that led to the English Reformation in the sixteenth century. Rather, Rome pretends to be flexible and modern about all this, gracious and accommodating like a fox. When the property fights begin, I predict the niceties will give way to some serious struggles and we will see just how accommodating Rome can’t be.

Denominations are businesses, after all, and as such they pay as much attention to the bottom line as to their teachings. Maybe more so. In this case, the low-hanging fruit is British Anglicans who have not figured out how to reorganize themselves in light of their denomination’s changes. Early word from the US group led by the Rev. Martyn Minns of Virginia is that they are in fine shape, thank you, setting up their own structures so they will not need to convert.

One wonders how long they can resist Rome’s charms. Imagine the real estate opportunities as US Roman Catholic churches close and conservative Anglicans need buildings. Think of the brilliant solution to the priest shortage as guaranteed-to-toe-the-line Anglican priests replace the Roman boys as they die off and/or think for themselves. Conjure the sight of high mass with a raft of altar servers and incense so abundant it makes parishioners forget there ever was a Vatican II. For the more “Catholic” among the Anglican dissidents, it is a marriage made in heaven. But the more evangelical of the conservative Anglicans may well consider it their worst nightmare.

What is to prevent other denominations from following Rome’s lead? For example, what if the Anglican Communion set up a Catholic wing where those Roman Catholics who believe in the ordination of women and same-sex loving clergy could be Anglicans of the Roman Catholic Rite? The Mennonites might create a Catholic rite for those who follow them on peace issues, resulting in Catholic Mennonites. I doubt it. It is more likely that Rome might decide that one does not even have to be Christian; that discrimination against women and gays is enough of a common bond to create some Catholics of the Muslim rite, for example. The permutations are endless but the result is the same: a perversion of everything the ecumenical movement has stood for in the last hundred years. Ecumenical Christians have tried to learn about one another’s traditions and find positive places of agreement — not little pockets of shared prejudice.

I feel sorry for Rowan Williams if he did not know what he was up against when he engaged in bilateral relations with Rome, only to be subject to its treachery. Beleaguered on all sides in his own communion, he now presides over the potential exodus of some of his members who will find in the new dispensation a comfortable place to live out their outmoded ideas of humanity. I only hope Williams and company are consoled by the fact that they are in good company among ecumenical colleagues who respect one another’s traditions, understand the dynamics of internal struggles, and resist the temptation to profit from one another’s problems. Rome, on the other hand, is in a class — however low — by itself.

Mary E. Hunt, Ph.D., is a feminist theologian who is co-founder and co-director of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER) in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. A Roman Catholic active in the women-church movement, she lectures and writes on theology and ethics with particular attention to liberation issues.

_____________________________

There are a number of comments on Mary’s commentary posted on the Religious Dispatches website. The one that resonated with me most was by “Fr. Harry,” who writes:

It’s ironic to see the Roman old guard out-Protestant the Protestants, creating new articles of faith based in skewed readings of the Bible designed to baptize the rawest of social prejudices. Apparently misogyny and homophobia have now been promoted to the ranks of church councils and creeds as tenets of faith. What a sad day for the rank and file Catholic to see their leadership acting like fundamentalist used car salesmen.

For more of Mary Hunt at the Wild Reed, see:
Our Catholic “Stonewall Moment”
Crisis? What Crisis?
A Mountain Out of a Molehill
Mary Hunt: “Catholicism is a Very Complex Reality
The “Ratzinger Letter” of 1986 as “Theological Pornography”

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Catholic Cafeteria Line: Stretching Now to the Right
Episcopal Fundamentalists Take Their Toys and Run
When Unity Trumps Truth

No Matter What

Within days of sharing my recent post about the tragic death of gay pop pioneer Stephen Gately, two different people contacted me and recommended the following video of Gately singing “No Matter What” with his fellow Boyzone band members.

As I’m sure you’ll agree, it’s an absolutely beautiful performance – and an especially meaningful one given the message of the lyrics and the fact that, at the time of its recording, Gately had just come out. Indeed, I’m sure that “No Matter What” will be forever linked to Stephen Gately and his brave journey.

When my fellow blogger Joe alerted me to this performance he called it “the response of Irish youth to fear-ridden bishops and popes!” How true. Indeed, the calm conviction embodied in Gately’s performance ensures that “No Matter What” serves as a song of love, hope and solidarity with and for anyone who has struggled and succeeded in living a life of truth and integrity in the face of ignorance, fear and bigotry.

Today is my 44th birthday, and I can’t think of a more beautiful and hopeful message to remind myself of - and to share with my Wild Reed supporters and friends - than that which is conveyed in “No Matter What.”

No matter what they tell us
No matter what they do
No matter what they teach us
What we believe is true
No matter what they call us
However they attack
No matter where they take us
We’ll find our own way back

I can’t deny what I believe
I can’t be what I’m not
I know I’ll love forever
I know, no matter what

If only tears were laughter
If only night was day
If only prayers were answered
Then we would hear God say

No matter what they tell you
No matter what they do
No matter what they teach you
What you believe is true

And I will keep you safe and strong
And sheltered from the storm
No matter where it’s barren
A dream is being born

No matter who they follow
No matter where they lead
No matter how they judge us
I’ll be everyone you need

No matter if the sun don’t shine
Or if the skies are blue
No matter what the end is
My life began with you

I can’t deny what I believe
I can’t be what I'm not
I know, I know
I know this love’s forever
That’s all that matters now
No matter what

When Joe posted a link to this song on his own blog, he included the following from an article by Fintan O’Toole in the October 20, 2009 issue of the Irish Times.

For the first time in Ireland, there was a widespread and comfortable use of “husband” to describe the bereaved partner of a gay man. Technically (and shamefully) the term is not strictly accurate – Stephen and Andy Cowles were never given the choice to marry and were civil partners. But everybody knew “husband” was the right word. The relationship was equal in love and affection, in commitment and in consequent devastation, to that within a marriage. It was unequal only in the eyes of a law that still presumes to make discriminatory judgments. The people of Gately’s home place accepted that. So, in essence, did the Catholic parish that conducted his funeral.

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
• Remembering Stephen Gately, Gay Pop Pioneer

The Catholic Cafeteria Line: Stretching Now to the Right

A lot of people are discussing the Vatican’s decision to make it easier for Anglicans who are uncomfortable with the Church of England’s acceptance of women priests and openly gay bishops to join the Roman Catholic Church.

According to the New York Times: “The Vatican will set up a formal conversion structure to allow Anglicans to preserve some of their liturgical traditions, including allowing married Anglican priests to remain married after they convert to [Roman] Catholicism.”

The newspaper also asks four religion commentators to respond to the question: “What does this announcement say about the [Roman] Catholic Church and its willingness to grant such flexibility?”

Following is the response of David Gibson, author of The Rule of Benedict: Pope Benedict XVI and His Battle with the Modern World.


Choosing Your Flavor

“Cafeteria Catholic” is about the worst epithet that conservative Catholics can hurl at liberals, with its implications of a pick-and-choose faith rather than a consistent fidelity to every jot and tittle of the catechism.

But after the news that the Vatican is effectively carving out a special church-within-a-church to shelter traditionalist Anglicans upset at gay priests and women bishops in their own church, one has to wonder if the cafeteria line isn’t forming to the right.

While both Pope John Paul II and his successor Benedict XVI have been known as staunch conservatives, they have in fact shown a remarkably liberal willingness to bend the rules when it comes to certain groups.

In 1982, John Paul made use of a novel structure called a “personal prelature” to allow the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei to operate in any diocese around the world while remaining answerable to the pope rather than the local bishop — an innovation that was not always welcomed by the bishops.

Similarly, when a traditionalist Catholic bishop, Marcel Lefebvre, took his anti-modernist movement into schism in 1988, John Paul (with the help of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict) created a special society that would allow defectors from Lefebvre’s movement to stay attached to Rome without giving up their old rites and views — much as the conservative Anglican converts can do now, even if they are married priests.

In 2007, Benedict XVI made another opening to the right by restoring the old Latin Mass to universal usage — over the objections of local bishops around the world — thereby creating two parallel rites in the Western church for the first time ever. (And Pope Benedict this week opened negotiations with the traditionalists who are still in schism in an effort to accommodate them, as well.)

For a church whose leadership has earned a reputation for reprimanding liberal Catholics who color outside the lines, these developments could be more than a bit frustrating. If conservatives can get special consideration, how about Catholics who have divorced and remarried but can’t take communion? Or those who back ordaining women? Or perhaps an exemption for the 25,000 or so priests who left the ministry in recent decades when they married? Many of them are ready, willing and able to return. Priest shortage solved.

Hey, Pope Benedict could be on to something. Some more, please?


Other commentators who responded to the New York Times’ question include the National Catholic Reporter’s John L. Allen, Jr., EWTN’s Colleen Carroll Campbell, and law and theology professor M. Cathleen Kaveny. To read all of their responses, click here.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Vatican in Bold Bid to Attract Anglicans - Stacy Meichtry and Amy Merrick (Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2009).
The Anglicans and Us - Michael Sean Winters (America, October 20, 2009).
Are Traditional Anglicans Suddenly the New Catholic Left? - Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, October 20, 2009).
For Canterbury Exiles, Rome Builds a Bridge - Rocco Palmo (Whispers in the Loggia, October 20, 2009).
Can’t Be Rome If It’s the Gays: Vatican Makes Burke a King and Welcomes Anglican Gay-Haters - William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, October 21, 2009).
Vatican Approves Married Priests - Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, October 21, 2009).
Angling for Anglicans - Crystal (Perspective, October 21, 2009).
TruthWinsOut.org Assails Vatican’s Appeal to Bigotry in Effort to Pilfer Anglican Church - Wayne Besen (TruthWinsOut.org, October 21, 2009).
Irony in Catholic Outreach to Anglicans - Dan Rodricks (Baltimore Sun, October 22, 2009).
Converts May Choke on Raw Meat of Catholicism - Libby Purves (London Times, October 22, 2009).
Misogynist? Homophobic? We’ve Got the Church for You! - Jamie L. Manson (National Catholic Reporter, October 22, 2009).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Episcopal Fundamentalists Take Their Toys and Run
When Unity Trumps Truth

An Upcoming Event of Special Interest to Twin Cities-area Catholics

.

Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable

The Catholic Church, Homosexuality,
and Reparative Therapy

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

St. Martin’s Table Restaurant and Bookstore
(2001 Riverside Ave., Minneapolis)
5:00 -6:30 p.m. – Soup supper ($5.00)
6:30 – 8:30 p.m. – Program (free and open to the public)

Almost 30 years ago Archbishop John Roach called for “competent and compassionate pastoral ministry” for LGBT persons and their families within the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis. Under subsequent archbishops we’ve sadly witnessed such ministry undermined and usurped by rigid doctrinal fundamentalism and discredited pseudo science.

Recently, the American Psychological Association repudiated “reparative therapy,” i.e., attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation through therapy and prayer. Yet the Courage Apostolate of the Catholic Church, which employs a 12 step-like program to help their members “recover” from “same-sex attractions,” continues to support individuals who seek “reparative therapy.” Courage also maintains links on its national website to pseudo-scientific organizations that endorse and/or offer reparative therapy.

On November 17, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) will host a forum featuring three speakers sharing their perspectives on this situation and offering steps that can be taken to hold the Courage Apostolate accountable – both locally and nationally –for its support of reparative therapy.

Speakers will include:

Dr. Simon Rosser, Ph.D., M.P.H., L.P.
Internationally renowned researcher on sexuality and sexual health

Philip Lowe, Jr.
Former member of the St. Paul-Minneapolis chapter of Courage

Michael Bayly
Executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on
Sexual Minorities and author of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT
Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective


The program component of this event is free and open to the public,
although a free-will offering will be requested.

For more information, call 612-201-4534.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable
The Cowardice of Courage
It’s Official: APA Opposes “Reparative Therapy”
The Continuum Just Shrank
“Curing” Homosexuality
Debunking NARTH (Part 1)
Debunking NARTH (Part 2)
The Real Meaning of Courage
The Many Forms of Courage (Part I)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part II)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part III)
Beyond Courage
Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory
A Catholic Presence at Gay Pride

"Fr. Tony" and the US Bishops' "Compulsion" re. Marriage Equality

Tony Adams (aka “Father Tony”) has recently posted online the first of a series of videos in which he shares his thoughts on the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ forthcoming “pastoral letter” on marriage.

The first installment of this series can be viewed here at The Bilerico Project.

Following are excerpts from the transcript of this first installment – one that focuses on the introduction to the bishop’s letter. I've added some thoughts of my own in bold.

______________________________

[The bishops] say [they] “feel compelled to speak out against all attempts to redefine marriage so that it would no longer be exclusively the union of a man and a woman as God established and blessed it.” . . . When they say, “We bishops feel compelled to speak out,” they might as well uncloak it and say, “We bishops have a compulsion about this.” [Note that the bishops are not speaking out with questions - they’re not interested, in other words, in dialogue or the exploration of the complex reality of human sexuality. Rather, they seem only able to speak out in declarations and condemnations. I think there are issues that demand that type of speaking out, but marriage equality isn’t one of them.]

Why do the bishops have this compulsion? What are they so afraid of? [I think I know the answer. And it’s one that has been eloquently articulated by Catholic writer Eugene Kennedy. My thoughts on it and related matters can be viewed here.]

[Of course] this compulsion is not the province of just the American Catholic bishops. All of the people who rail against the possibility of marriage equality feel this compulsion and none of them understand it. . . . Hardly anyone understands what is at the root of this compulsion to be so afraid of same-sex marriage. But it is a compulsion. It is a horror that they feel from the depth of their being and they’re going to follow through on it. So when you argue with a bishop, you have to understand that they are totally overrun and overridden by this compulsion and it clouds their ability to think logically. What will follow will be a string of biblical citations and what-have-yous that they think support their compulsion. [Well, they may support their “compulsions” but they don’t reflect reality or the wider church’s growing awareness and acceptance of God’s loving presence in the lives and relationships of gay people.]

There’s one more section in this introduction, I believe, in line 98: “We intend this pastoral letter to be a theological and doctrinal foundation.” So take note of this, Catholics, this letter is not to be taken lightly. You know, it’s a read-it-and-weep love letter to you Catholics. Lines 102 through 104: say: “Our pastoral letter presents those beliefs and teachings of the Catholic church informed by human reason and enlightened by divine revelation that summarize and express God’s plan for marriage.” Did you get that, folks? The bishops are saying that what their teachings consist of have been informed by human reason. In other words, anybody with a brain would come to these conclusions. [Except, of course, they don’t - basically because they see through and reject the bishops’ circular logic.]

. . . Now I want to talk a little bit about divine revelation in this context because those of you who would like to call yourselves Catholic, you have to know this. This in a nutshell – no pun intended – is the basic deal with [the expression of] Catholicism [being pushed by the hierarchy]: the bishops blatantly claim that God has spoken or revealed these things to them. So, they must be true and we must believe them. If you disagree and claim that God has revealed the opposite to you, the bishops could claim that you are wrong because, after all, they have the pointy hats; they’ve been ordained bishops, they know best, you don’t. God cannot reveal things to you that are [not] revealed through them. They’ve got the franchise on the voice of God. It’s from God’s lips to their ears, not to yours. You can’t declare a revelation. You can’t declare that because you have no control over your sexual identity that you think it is something that God loves and would permit you to act on. They say no. God has not revealed that to you. God has revealed to us the opposite. We are the bishops. We have the revelation.

This harks back to . . . ancient Greece or ancient Rome when the temple priests would come forth from the temple and say God has spoken to us, Zeus has spoken to us, Jupiter has spoken to us, Apollo has spoken to us. . . . Nothing has changed since then. [In] holding the franchise on divine revelation [and in speaking the way the bishops do] they are claiming to understand the mind of God in a way that you cannot. So, you guys, if you want to be Catholic, you have to understand and buy that premise. Okay? If you don’t buy that premise, don’t be Roman Catholic.


And, yes, there are plenty of folks willing to show those of who don’t buy this premise the door!

Yet, once again, I take heart in what Terence Weldon notes in response to a recent national survey on public support for same-gender marriage conducted by the Pew Research Center. Writes Terence:

In the Catholic Church, progress is masked by the implacable opposition of the hierarchy, and the vocal opposition of the Catholic loyalists. The Pew survey shows, however, that the bishops and loyalists do not represent the views of ordinary Catholics, many of whom support either civil unions or full marriage rights, and do not see homosexuality per se as a moral issue.

In light of realities such as these, I for one am encouraged and committed to staying on board the Catholic ship and working to help steer it away from the shoals of reactionary thinking.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Spirit’s Transforming Work Continues Within and Through Us
Rosemary Haughton and the “True Catholic Enterprise”
Time For a Church for Grown-Ups
Johnson and Tushnet Debate as Much About Nature of Revelation as It Is About Homosexuality
James Carroll on Catholic Understands of Truth
“If the People Don’t Believe It, It’s Not True”
Sensus Fidelium Discussion Continues
Will We See Change?
The Catholic Challenge
The Treasure and the Dross
Trading with Frozen Truths
Shirtless Guy Offers Survival Tips for Gay Catholics
Tips for Thinking Catholics
What It Means to Be Catholic

Darwin's Darkest Hour

Recently I watched Darwin’s Darkest Hour an engaging drama on my local PBS station that explored why Charles Darwin purposely delayed coming out with his groundbreaking theory on the “progression of species.” It was a delay that went on for years and ended only after Darwin was threatened with having his theories preempted by another natural historian, Alfred Russel Wallace.

A joint production of National Geographic Television and NOVA, the dramatic retelling of these events is entitled Darwin’s Darkest Hour. The film is directed by John Bradshaw and stars Henry Ian Cusick as Charles Darwin and Frances O’Connor as his wife Emma. One aspect of the narrative I particularly appreciated was the numerous (and illuminating) flashbacks that compellingly depicted the development of Darwin’s challenging ideas.

I learned quite a lot from watching Darwin’s Darkest Hour. For example, I didn’t know Darwin’s father at first objected to his son’s passionate interest in natural history and the “folly” of his voyage of discovery aboard the HMS Beagle. He wanted Charles instead to be first a doctor and then a clergyman – a bishop, no less. And can you believe that throughout the five year duration of his voyage on the Beagle, Darwin suffered terribly from sea sickness!

I also found the film’s depiction of Darwin’s relationship with his wife and children to be touching. Charles and Emma’s life together was truly one of the great love stories on the nineteenth century. They were also a couple who knew great personal tragedy in their family life.

Above: Henry Ian Cusick as Charles Darwin
with his daughter Annie (played by Emily Power).

The central focus of the film, however, is Darwin’s awareness of how the things he discovered would be seen by many as an attack on religion and thus the entire moral order. Why? Because Darwin’s investigations into the transmutation of species, natural selection, and evolution threatened to totally overturn the traditional view of a created fixed order with humans at the apex.

At one point in Darwin’s Darkest Hour, the captain of the Beagle objects to Darwin’s theories – insisting that they undermine the stabilizing influence of the Bible and, if ever publicized, would serve as “an axe to the root of the faith that sustains society.” Darwin always insisted, however, that his inquiries into the origin of species – the “mystery of mysteries” – wasn’t about undermining religion. Rather, his point was that the Bible cannot and should not be understood and as a scientific text.

Darwin’s wife Emma also found his theories troubling. Yet she was adamant that he should go public with them. A strong but gentle woman of the Unitarian tradition, Emma at one point shares her conviction that “honest and conscientious doubts can never be a sin.”

Toward the end of the film, in a scene set shortly after the tragic death of the couple’s infant son, Darwin confides to his wife that the whole subject of God was “too profound for the human intellect.”

The film clearly attempts to provide a very human portrait of the “father of modern biology” – a man dedicated to truth, scientific truth, and whose book, The Origin of Species (1859), undoubtedly changed the world. Darwin’s Darkest Hour is well worth experiencing.

Interestingly, shortly after viewing this film I came across an intriguing article in The Christian Century on “Evolution and Sacrifice: Cooperation as a Scientific Principle” by Sarah Coakley.

I’ll conclude this post with that part of Coakley’s article that I found most insightful, followed by a short video comprised of clips from Darwin’s Darkest Hour.

__________________________________

The fact that cooperation has been identified by biologists as a strategy in evolution indicates that selfishness is not the sole key to success in evolutionary development. Martin A. Novak has identified five precise conditions in which cooperation works (“Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation,” Science, December 2006). This strategy works so interestingly across the entire evolutionary spectrums, from bacteria to Homo sapiens, that Novak states that cooperation must be counted a third evolutionary principle alongside the classic Darwinian duo of mutation and selection. Cooperation, Novak analysis shows, can be a kind of contrapuntal accompaniment, without which selection itself would not go on operating as it does: extreme competitiveness dethrones itself.

Darwin had already assented, in The Descent of Man, that factors beyond mere mutation and selection (in the case of hunter-gatherers, some kind of community solidarity) were doing something important to evolutionary processes. But he could not precisely pin down those other factors. Now with the aid of mathematical accounts of evolutionary processes, we can.





Recommended Off-site Link:
Darwin’s Darkest Hour – National Center for Science Education (September 24, 2009).