Quote of the Day

The pope’s message that all religions are paths to God, languages of God, is what he has been saying since the beginning of his pontificate, and it is firmly built on the teaching of Vatican II and John Paul II. Unfortunately, the uptight, suspicion-ridden tone of the CDF document Dominus Iesus (2000) in tandem with the persecution of selected interreligious theologians such as Perry Schmidt-Leukel and Jacques Dupuis put a damper on such thinking in the Catholic world, and is still invoked by those eager to denounce the pope as a heretic.

On the basic issue, the pope is sensitive to the mystical core of the great religions. He will not deny that God makes Godself known to all, and particularly through their religions (as John Paul II noted). Augustine recognized that Plotinus had made great breakthroughs in knowledge of God, in his meditation on the absolute simplicity of the One, the “power of all things” (dunamis pantōn), who is not remote, but the very center, nearer to us than we are to ourseves, present in his entirety everywhere (totus ubique praesens). Augustine himself knew ecstatic moments of Plotininian mysticism, touching “idipsum” (the very reality of God) with the pinnacle of his mind, and letting his whole being be flooded with the presence of God as light (on reading some texts of Plotinus).

The critics of the pope focus their pearl-clutching on Islam, as if it were inconceivable that Muslims could reach God. I would answer in the words of a young man in a computer shop taking a break for prayer: “How many people can say that they know their creator?”
Catholicism is wasting away because it has cut itself off from the great concert of religious joy that is going on all the time as the divine Logos enlightens all minds (John 1:9). Pope Francis recognizes the closeness to God of many non-Christians, embraces them in mutual understanding. This ecumenical explosion is the antidote to religion as horror, as in Netanyahu’s “Remember Amalek!” which has now brought him to a new threshold of terrorism, using people’s mobile phones to blind them.

– Joseph S. O’Leary
via Facebook
September 22, 2024

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Guidelines for the Advent of a Universal Mysticism: An Introduction | Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
• Andrew Harvey on Our “Divine Identity”
• The Mystic Jesus: “A Name for the Unalterable Love That All of Us Share”
• Marianne Williamson: “We’re Living at a Time of Spiritual Evolution”
• Whether Christian or Muslim, James Foley Remains a “Symbol of Faith Under the Most Brutal of Conditions”
• Keeping the Spark Alive

Image: Kristen Solberg.

Quote of the Day

Cardinal Marx's remarks in Dublin continue to drive the Catholic right crazy. It's encouraging that the benighted Vatican documents they wave at the dreaded gays now carry less weight than the off-the-cuff remark of the Cardinal, echoed by the Pope. It's as if change has been going on underground, so that when cardinals and popes emerge speaking like modern men, the effect is a sudden seism. Now, to rewrite the three or four Vatican documents that the rightists know by heart is a delicate hermeneutical task. I suppose the next document on gay issues from the Vatican will begin with the words "as the Church has always taught" – and indeed there are sources in the buried reservoir of church teaching that could be brought forth in defense of gay relationships and even, perhaps, of gay marriage. The rightists have lionized the obscure figure of Peter Damian, notorious for hysterical homophobic rants, thus painting themselves into an eccentric corner of the tradition. Let them open their eyes and observe that Catholic thought, art, and life offer a symphony of possibilities.

– Joseph S. O'Leary
via Facebook
July 6, 2016

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• The Catholic Church and Gays: An Excellent Historical Overview
• Catholic Church Can Overcome Fear of LGBT People
• Beyond Respectful Tolerance to Celebratory Acceptance

Recommended Off-site Link:
Homosexual Relationships: Another Look – Bill Hunt (The Progressive Catholic Voice, September 8, 2012).

Image: Kristen Solberg.

Quote of the Day

.

Things have moved very quickly, taking the Church by surprise. The movement for the recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions has been astonishingly successful. While the Catholic hierarchy rejects all legal acceptance of same-sex couples, its arguments are unsatisfying, especially because they are unaccompanied by a viable alternative proposal. Meanwhile gay and lesbian couples exist, known and appreciated by their friends and families, at least in liberal democracies where ancient homophobic attitudes are in retreat. Catholic bishops in these countries feel obliged to raise their voice, offering a warning that they see as a prophetic, counter-cultural witness. Unfortunately, given the actual play of forces today, this aligns the bishops with countries where homosexuality is a taboo subject. Stressing in rather abstract terms the respect due to homosexual persons, the bishops have been loath to enter into dialogue with LGBT folk or even with theologians favorable to gay rights, on the pretext that to open such dialogue would in itself compromise church teaching.

. . . Moral teaching cannot abstract from the lived situation of those to whom it claims to apply. If one insists exclusively on principles, leaving their application to pastoral wisdom, which in its turn is impoverished by an exaggerated fear of betraying the principles, one risks finding one day that these principles, worked out at a great distance from reality on the ground, have become anemic and sterile. A credible moral reflection would demand attention to the testimonies of those who have lived the different possibilities of gay and lesbian experience, so as to measure soberly the various values in play. This dialogue could be enriched by steeping our reflections in literature, which illuminates from a thousand angles the complexity and variety of human relationships, even if a heavy censorship has made its text difficult to decipher in the case of gay realities. Such exposure threatens theology with the loss of its certitudes about the unalterable essences of love, marriage, and friendship. Humanity remains a territory unknown to itself, for the more it is explored, the more the enigmas multiply. The Bible, if well read, in a liberative key, espouses and deepens this complexity; church discourse, to do the same, needs a new praxis of dialogal openness and self-critique.

– Joseph S. O'Leary
"A Vexed Question: Catholic Theology Facing Same-Sex Marriage"
May 31, 2014

Related Off-site Links:
Catholics and Same-Sex Relationships: A Pathway to Doctrinal Change? – Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, February 14, 2014).
Homosexual Relationships: Another Look – Bill Hunt (The Progressive Catholic Voice, September 8, 2012).
Creating a Liberating Church – Rosemary Radford Ruether (The Progressive Catholic Voice, July 15, 2010).
Commonweal, Catholicism, and Same-Sex Marriage (Part 1) – Francis DeBernardo (Bondings 2.0, May 31, 2014).

For more of Joseph S. O'Leary at The Wild Reed, see:
Joseph O'Leary Responds to Carson Holloway's Arguments Against Gay Marriage
The Decline of the Neocaths?
The Church and Homosexuality: An Excellent Overview

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Call to Be Dialogical Catholics
From Rome to Minneapolis, Dialogue is What's Needed
Comprehending the "Fullness of Truth"
Our Catholic "Stonewall Moment"
"Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality is Complex and Nuanced"
Relationship: The Crucial Factor in Sexual Morality
Joan Timmerman on the "Wisdom of the Body"
The Dreaded "Same-Sex Attracted" View of Catholicism
Quote of the Day – December 11, 2013
Three Excellent Responses to Cardinal Dolan
Beyond Respectful Tolerance to Celebratory Acceptance
A Conservative Catholic's Contribution to the Journey to Marriage Equality
Quote of the Day – June 15, 2013
Rediscovering What Has Been Written on Our Hearts from the Very Beginning
God Weighs In on the Gay Marriage Debate
Beyond the Hierarchy: The Blossoming of Liberating Catholic Insights on Sexuality

Image: Gonzalo Orquin.

Quote of the Day

I don't for a moment believe that this document is inspired by any genuine pastoral concern. It is a holding operation, to please the Vatican, and is clearly not based on any open discussion with gays and lesbians, or any consultation with sources other than rightwing organizations such as Courage. The authors of the document have projected their own neuroses, and have shown no empathy, no understanding, no basic humanity, in their pronouncements.

– Joseph S. O'Leary
"Horrifying Document from
the Canadian Bishops"
July 2, 2011

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Be Not Afraid: You Can Be Happy and Gay
• When "Guidelines" Lack Guidance
• The Bishops' Guidelines: A Catholic Parent's Response
• The "Ratzinger Letter" of 1986 as "Theological Pornography"
• Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Courage
• Notes from the "Laughable but Tragic" World of Courage
• Beyond Courage

Joseph O'Leary Responds to Carson Holloway's Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Recently on his blog Catholic commentator Joseph O'Leary (right) offered a thoughtful and insightful critique of Carson Holloway's essay, "Same-Sex Marriage and Human Flourishing," in which Holloway contends that "public recognition of unions contrary to human flourishing will hurt, not help, the happiness of those who participate in them."

Although I'm loathe to reproduce Holloway's uninformed diatribe at The Wild Reed, I nevertheless do so as O'Leary's responses to its key points are well worth sharing. This is because Holloway's article reiterates the common arguments of those hostile and/or dismissive of same-sex marriage and gay people in general. The more we can share and thus educate ourselves about the critiques and challenges to such arguments the better we can advocate for respect, compassion and justice for LGBT individuals, couples and families.

__________________________________________

Same-Sex Marriage and Human Fulfillment

By Carson Holloway

ThePublicDiscourse.com
June 1, 2011

Public recognition of unions contrary to human flourishing
will hurt, not help, the happiness of those who participate in them.

Joseph O'Leary's response: Gay couples do in fact flourish humanly on the stability, mutual support, and affective realization that their union generates. This phenomenon is never adverted to by the author, who really does not seem to care very much about the human flourishing of real human beings.

Is there anything of substance to be gained for homosexuals from the current quest for same-sex marriage?

At its inception, the “gay rights” movement could reasonably present itself as a struggle against societal oppression. Forty years ago, American law in most states punished homosexual acts as criminal offenses. In many cases the penalties attending such laws were severe. In Bowers v. Hardwick—the 1986 Supreme Court decision upholding Georgia’s anti-sodomy statute—Justice Lewis Powell observed with understandable concern that the law at issue in that case permitted a sentence of up to twenty years in prison for the commission of a single homosexual act. In addition to such a legal landscape, homosexuals confronted a rather censorious culture. Mainstream America not only looked upon homosexual acts with disapproval, but also treated homosexual persons as objects of ridicule (at best) and hostility (at worst).

This is not to concede the claim often deployed by gay rights activists that such traditional laws and mores were based upon nothing but an irrational and malicious hatred of homosexuals. Such a claim unjustly overlooks ancient philosophical and religious beliefs that deeply influenced the Western understanding of the purposes of human sexuality, an understanding that included principled grounds upon which to view homosexual acts as morally disordered. It is, after all, hardly plausible that such beliefs were invented for no other reason than to justify hatred of homosexuals. It is to admit, however, that society’s earlier strictures against homosexuality could reasonably be viewed—even by those who still today disapprove of homosexual conduct—as uncharitable and excessively punitive.

O'Leary: By the same reasoning, one might argue that Jews should not be too uppity; after all it is only 66 years since we used to put them in concentration camps; or Blacks, whom we kindly relieved from being our slaves.

Homosexuals today face a markedly changed legal and cultural environment. Criminal anti-sodomy statutes, seldom enforced in the first place, have now been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Moreover, the Lawrence decision has been greeted by very little protest even from the most conservative defenders of traditional sexual morality, most of whom, despite their disapproval of homosexual acts, have no interest in seeing such acts punished as crimes. Indeed, American culture overall is more tolerant of homosexuality now than it has ever been. The ridicule and anger that homosexuals once faced is no longer mainstream but is now itself the object of mainstream disapproval.

O'Leary: By the same token, it might be argued that ridicule of Jews is now disapproved of and that those who disapprove of the Jewish religion no longer persecute it. So why should there be movements defending Jews against defamation, for example?

Despite these changes, the gay rights movement persists. Having succeeded in changing American law and culture to such a remarkable extent in such a short time, it has moved on to a new quest, the quest for same-sex marriage. This new goal is different in kind from the ones already achieved: it is not so much a demand to be freed from evils imposed by society as it is a demand for positive public benefits, specifically the benefits that attend marriage. It is a mistake, however, to think that the same-sex marriage movement is aimed primarily at acquiring the material benefits and legal prerogatives that accompany publicly recognized marriage. The aim, rather, is equality of public recognition or approval.

O'Leary: This is what Mark Shea calls “gay blackshorts on the march” – but as in the case of inter-racial marriage or Jewish-Christian marriage, it does not seem to be such an unreasonable request. Which is why it is winning the battle of public opinion, and is also being taken up by reputable theologians.

This is most obvious in the ongoing federal lawsuit brought against California’s constitutional provision defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, a suit that has no other object but equal recognition of—that is, equal public status or honor for—homosexual relationships. California already has a law recognizing the domestic partnerships of committed homosexual couples. That law affords homosexual relationships some measure of public status, and it bestows upon them the same legal benefits as heterosexual marriage. The extent of California’s legal “discrimination” against homosexuals, then, is that the state has sought to reserve a traditional and honorable title for heterosexual unions. This is all that is at issue in the Proposition Eight lawsuit, and it demonstrates that the aim of the same-sex marriage activists behind it is equality of public recognition.

O'Leary: If that is all that is at issue, the Proposition Eight people made a huge tactical error in spreading the message that gay were out to destroy marriage and corrupt our children.

It is not clear, however, that the quest for same-sex marriage offers any substantive good to those on whose behalf it is so insistently demanded. Put another way, it is hard to see why such an absolute equality of public recognition should be essential to the happiness of homosexuals. Let me explain.

The strongest argument against same-sex marriage—in the sense of the argument with the deepest philosophic roots, or the argument that gets to the most fundamental issues at stake—is that homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law. This argument is either true, or it is not.

O'Leary: There is no considered and rational argument on the matter. Those who declare that homosexual acts are against natural law usually have not examined the case against this view. They have to maintain that the homosexual orientation itself is unnatural, which has never been established by rational argument or observation. Also, they generally do not know what Natural Law means, and confuse it with biologistic taboos. Holloway is a fan of Larry Arnhart, who has attempted to reground Natural Law in Darwinism: see here. If I were Arnhart, I would be embarrassed to see my thought put to such use. I reviewed Arnhart's first book (on Aristotle's rhetoric) favorably, and would be surprised to find him backing primitivistic conceptions of natural law. I see that another reader of Arnhart has refuted someone with the same views as Holloway: see here.

If it is true, then publicly sanctioned same-sex marriage will contribute nothing substantial to the happiness of homosexuals. There are various understandings of natural law, but all present the natural law as a reality that exists independent of human opinion, a rule for human flourishing that human beings can ignore only at their own peril. On this view, the real issue in human happiness is the moral quality of our lives and not how they are regarded by society at large. As Socrates explains to his young interlocutors in Plato’s Republic, the actual being of the soul, and not its mere seeming, is decisive for human happiness. That is to say, happiness is the fruit of the proper functioning of the human soul, so that character, and not reputation or opinion, is the source of genuine flourishing. On this understanding, Socrates explains, a just soul, one ruled according to reason, is happier than an unjust one, regardless of whatever praises are heaped upon the successfully unjust man by a corrupted public opinion.

Accordingly, if homosexual conduct really is, as its natural law critics contend, a perversion of human desires and capacities, a wrenching of them away from their natural purposes, then such conduct will be a source of frustration and unhappiness regardless of whether society bestows its “recognition,” and hence its approval, on it. On this view, there is nothing of substance to be gained from same-sex marriage even for homosexuals. Indeed, if traditional natural law theorists are correct in their assessment of homosexual conduct, then same-sex marriage would be not only pointless but positively damaging, to the extent that it could mislead people to their own harm by bestowing a spurious respectability on an objectively disordered way of life.

O'Leary: The false psychology that sees gays as wrenching sex away from its natural heterosexual expression shows the Neanderthal character of this appeal to natural law.

But of course the proponents of same-sex marriage adamantly deny the truth of the traditional natural law critique of homosexual conduct. On the contrary, they hold that this natural law critique is, despite its philosophic pretensions, a mere prejudice with no basis in nature or reason. For them, homosexual relationships are naturally enriching to those who desire them, and for that reason they deserve the same public recognition that heterosexual unions enjoy. Once again, however, Socrates’ point about the priority of nature to opinion, or of being to seeming, of soul to reputation, indicates that, if this view is correct, same-sex marriage would be nothing more than a needless addition to a naturally fulfilling undertaking.

O'Leary: It is absurd to appeal to Socrates on this. The priority of being over seeming could not mean for Socrates the priority of biologistic definitions of sex over the instinct of Eros (which is predominantly homosexual in Socrates and Plato).

In Socrates’ time, the philosophic life was largely held in disrepute, thought to be the province of the unmanly and the politically unserious. According to Socrates, however, this negative reputation posed no serious impediment to his happiness precisely because the pursuit of wisdom is by nature a source, indeed the highest source, of human happiness. To take a less lofty example, contemporary American society loads massive amounts of attention and honor on sports at all levels, and hardly any at all on chess. This huge disparity in recognition, however, makes no difference at all to the true chess lover: precisely because he experiences chess as fulfilling his natural faculties and desires he has no interest in what other people think about his love for the game. Indeed, if the supposed lover of chess were to demand indignantly that his activity deserves recognition on a par with other games, we would rightly suspect that there is, in fact, some deficiency in the intrinsic satisfactions of chess that he seeks to make up through the more superficial satisfactions of recognition or public honor. In sum, if our activities are the genuine seat of happiness, then the quest for “recognition” of same-sex unions is really just the pursuit not of a reality but of a mere appearance.

The preceding argument does not hold that reputation is a matter of complete indifference. We are sociable beings. Hence we crave honor and feel the sting of disgrace. Accordingly, gays would be pursuing something of serious value if they were trying to overcome disgrace. But they do not now live in disgrace. Their lives are now viewed as a legitimate minority alternative. Their being known as homosexuals does not preclude their winning public recognition on other grounds. They are, again, merely seeking equality of public recognition. But this is not a making up of some serious deficiency, and it is in fact the kind of mild lack that is endured by everyone who pursues some love that is tolerated but not wholly understood or endorsed by the public at large. (We might also add that it is strange for a movement that began by presenting itself as a bold repudiation of conventional morality now to be demanding conventional recognition.)

O'Leary: It is true that the gay movement has changed. But surely a moral thinker should be happy with this, rather than wishing that it had remained devoted to repudiating conventional morality? Also, it is very unphilosophical to treat “recognition” as a surface matter – as Fichte and Hegel showed, it is essential to human dignity and happiness.

There is, moreover, a further emptiness in this quest for equal recognition. The progress of same-sex marriage in American politics has been almost entirely the result not of legislation but of litigation. The final, national victory of same-sex marriage, if it comes, will come as the result of a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States issued not only without the consent of a majority of Americans, but even against the legally expressed will of majorities in a majority of states. Public recognition of same-sex marriage is demanded as a sign of equal public acceptance, but the mode in which it is being sought ensures that the acceptance will be fraudulent. It will be in fact not a public acceptance but the acceptance of a legal and political elite that is able to force its will on the public.

O'Leary: The rights of Blacks and Jews did not have to wait for a numerical majority to be recognized; the rule of law is not dependent on mob sentiment; and in any case polls show increasing popular support for gay marriage or civil unions.

Given the substantial—unprecedented, in fact—toleration and freedom that homosexuals already enjoy, and given the inevitable sense of grievance that a victory through litigation will produce in the defenders of traditional marriage, the proponents of same-sex marriage should ask themselves whether it is really worthwhile to exert themselves so much, and to so roil the politics of their country, in the pursuit of absolute equality of recognition.

O'Leary: The sense of grievance referred to will prevail among the dwindling group of the disgruntled in any case. The entire essay reeks of a distancing and condescending attitude to gays, to say the least, as if the author had never met a gay individual.


Carson Holloway is political scientist and the author most recently of The Way of Life: John Paul II and the Challenge of Liberal Modernity (Baylor University Press).

O'Leary: Once again the papacy gets itself associated with dismal and meretricious anti-gay arguments. (HT/Mark Shea)


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Tips on Speaking as a Catholic in Support of Marriage Equality
Responding to Bishop Tobin's Remarks on Gay Marriage
Marriage Equality: Simple Answers to NOM's Complicated Lies
Nathanial Frank on the Natural Law Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage
Evan Wolfson on the "Basic Biology" Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage
Marianne Duddy-Burke on Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage
Joseph Palacios: "The Church is Not the Victim"
A "Fruit" Reflects Upon the Meaning of "Fruitfulness"

Spring Round-Up

“Howdy, pardners!” Or should that be “Gidday mates,” given the opening image of Hugh Jackman as The Drover in Baz Luhrmann’s Australia?

Either way, I’m happy to share with you a “spring round-up” of some online articles I’ve recently come across and which I find to be particularly insightful, interesting, and/or inspiring.

________________________________________

First up is my friend Paula Ruddy’s Progressive Catholic Voice article, “One Archdiocesan Community, Two Mindsets,” in which she makes the case for the Pentecost encounter last Sunday between Archbishop John C. Nienstedt and the Rainbow Sash Alliance being illustrative of the two different mindsets articulated by Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., and which he terms “Communion Catholic” and “Kingdom Catholic.”

Currently in the comments section of this article there’s a great dialogue taking place between Paula and “Jamez.” I particularly appreciate the following from Jamez:

Catholic culture is far more than that which operates within the formal institution. As more people are chased out of the formal institutional [church], we will experience an informal renaissance of Catholic culture. I believe we are in it now. The Spirit moves where it wills. Vatican II is working.

Paula’s article and the dialogue it’s facilitating are well worth checking out – not to mention jumping right on into, if you feel so inclined!

________________________________________

Another post that has generated much conversation is a well written and interestingly researched one by Eric (over at Serpentis Sacra) on gay sexual ethics.

Some of the back-and-forth comments in response to Eric’s post that I’ve found to be particularly interesting include the following:

Matthew writes: Growing up in an inner city Anglo-Catholic environment, it was the gay couples who were most honest about sex in and out of their relationships that seemed the healthiest and most loving. The ones that attempted monogamy, namely me, or even continence, namely the clergy, just seem in the end to be uptight, dishonest and lacking in love.

Davis writes: [Matthew wrote that] “safe non-relational or ex-relational sex, would not seem to be bad for spiritual/physical health, so why forbid it?” I do dispute this. My experience is that the lack of commitment shows a lack of regard for both (or more) parties involved. Whether or not the physical health is imperiled, the spiritual health and self-esteem can be imperiled. “No man can serve two masters...” The depths of love cannot really be plumbed in casual encounters, again in my experience. Rather than seeing the casual encounter as “forbidden” it can still be seen as less fulfilling.

Joseph writes: As Christians [we] are called to reflect the everlasting love of the Most Holy Trinity. God says that He is a jealous god, meaning that our love for him is not to be shared with any other god, whether metaphysical or temporal. If we share our sexual love with more than one person, are we not in danger of creating jealousies, hurts, etc? From a practical standpoint, I happen to think that adding a third (or more) sexual/romantic partner is more than likely to create division, jealousy, pride, and many other non-desirable (at least to Christians) attributes. Every gay couple with an open relationship that I have known, have failed as a couple.

Gabe writes: A sacramental union is foremost about mutual aid toward the salvation of each other’s souls. . . . I could not be sexually active with someone besides my spouse without feeling that I had betrayed him, and if he sought sexual gratification elsewhere it would feel like the same against me. He feels the same way. Hormonally and otherwise, there is no such thing as casual sex, and to attempt it while in a committed relationship is to deliberately entertain temptations to abandon your partner.

________________________________________

Speaking of committed relationships, Terence over at Queering the Church has recently posted a great piece entitled “Marriage Equality and the Church,” in which he surveys the status of marriage equality in both the U.S. and Europe.

I find his conclusions heartening:

There is no longer any doubt: marriage equality is spreading steadily across the world, and across the US. As it does so, the churches will increasingly be forced to grapple with, and re-examine, their own beliefs. In doing so, many will reverse long-standing opposition to same sex relationships, and see the value of recognising commitment, whatever the orientation or gender of the partners.

The Catholic church will be behind the trend – but will not resist indefinitely. Here, too, truth will triumph in the end.

Amen, brother!

Terence also has a great piece on St. Patrick as a gay role model! It can be viewed here.

________________________________________

PrickiestPear over at Far From Rome is yet another blogger who maintains a consistently high standard of writing on topical issues within the Church. I particularly recommend his post on Why the Vatican is Wrong About Contraception, and his review of Steve McIntosh’s book, Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution.

________________________________________

Joseph O’Leary has recently raised a number of important questions and valid critiques in response to the release of the Ryan Report on the clergy abuse scandal in Ireland, and in particular, the way it’s findings have been reported by the mainstream corporate media. He writes, for instance, that:

Increasingly I am feeling that we have witnessed one of the most disgraceful weeks in the annals of Irish journalism. No journalist seems to have studied the Ryan report in depth. Lazy repetition of the most lurid details and lots of soapbox oratory replaced the journalists’ duty to provide critical perspective.

The report focuses primarily on a small number of Industrial and Reformatory schools, maintained by the Irish State because they were cheaper than what Britain in the same period had got around to providing for children (brothers and nuns providing cheap personnel). 161 other schools and institutions were also examined, and of these schools the report has limited criticisms to make. The vast majority of Irish schools lie outside the bounds of the report.

To read more, click here.

________________________________________

Over at Perspective, Crystal highlights an important and insightful 2006 National Catholic Reporter article by Raymond A. Schroth on “Why Bonhoeffer Was Wrong.”

As Crystal notes:

[Many in the] conservative blogosphere [view Dietrich Bonhoeffer] as a heroic representation of the ends justifying the means. Bonhoeffer collaborated in plans to assassinate Hitler, and conservatives want to see this as proof of the morality of murdering doctors who do abortions.

And Schroth writes:

In no way does the Sermon on the Mount make wiggle room for political assassination. . . . The argument against assassination is the basic Kantian principle that underlies the Geneva Conventions against torture: For us to kill Saddam Hussein or any world leader, particularly because the leader is the embodiment of his society, is a moral invitation to our enemies to do the same to us. Furthermore, assassinations almost always fail to achieve their purpose and they kill the innocent as well. The Israeli-targeted killings of Hamas leaders with rockets fired from helicopters kill everyone else in the car and bystanders as well. Our targeted bombings in Iraq aimed at Saddam and his generals missed Saddam and the generals and killed hundreds of civilians in the neighborhood. The July 10, 1944, plot, a bomb planted in a meeting room, missed Hitler and killed four others. In retaliation, Hitler purged and executed 5,000 opponents of his regime. Some were tortured to death.

Except in civil disobedience, where one protests an unjust law and takes public responsibility, whenever anyone with power - president or priest - starts to go above, outside or around the law and gives himself a license to kill, beware.

________________________________________

Richard Gray has a fascinating article in the British newspaper, The Telegraph, in which he highlights the “growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans.” Writes Gray:

Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions and have a sense of morality.

But Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are “hard-wired” into the brains of all mammals and provide the “social glue” that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups.

He has compiled evidence from around the world that shows how different species of animals appear to have an innate sense of fairness, display empathy and help other animals that are in distress.

His conclusions will provide ammunition for animal welfare groups pushing to have animals treated more humanely, but some experts are sceptical about the extent to which animals can experience complex emotions and social responsibility.

To read more, click here.

________________________________________

And finally, Busted Halo has posted an interesting conversation with a Roman Catholic nun and her gay cousin.

Following is what the gay man, Paul Mages, says about coming out to his family – including his cousin Sr. Bernadette (Mary) Reis of the traditional Roman Catholic religious order, the Daughters of St. Paul.

I didn’t come out to anybody in the family until I met somebody that I thought at that time that I’d be with forever. Because I thought that would add some validity to being gay, and then they wouldn’t think it’s some sexual thing that you just try out and it’s casual and not serious, not meaningful.

So after I met my partner — I was only with him a few months — I thought that would be forever. So I told my parents. And surprisingly, they were very nonjudgmental. Because, you know, my parents aren’t maybe quite as extreme as far as their religious observance, as Mary’s family is; but they were still pretty traditional and there were things you did, things you didn’t do. You went to church every Sunday, no questions asked. So I was pleasantly surprised that they were kind and supportive and loving, you know, “We’ll always be here for you,” “We love you,” “Nothing’s changed.” And so I wanted to tell other people too.

Slowly I let people in, you know, telling other people in the family. But it wasn’t difficult to tell Mary. Because first off, she’s family, so I expected her to be loving. Secondly, she’s a religious, so I was thinking she wouldn’t be judgmental, which she wasn’t, but I guess a lot of religious might be, even though they probably shouldn’t be. I just knew that she would let God do the judging and she wouldn’t make me feel at all like I wasn’t accepted. And then personally I just knew that she’d be compassionate and she’s a great listener, too. So it was an easy environment for me.

And here’s Sr. Bernadette reflecting on her relationship with her gay cousin Paul.

I think that I am here to be a friend to Paul. From the level of experience, to go over to Paul’s home and to see a home set up for him and his partner to live as a couple, it was the first time I had ever been in a situation like that, so of course it’s going to feel — what’s the word? — different, you know. But we do exactly the same things together as I do with other friends, we have the same conversations together, they invited me out with their friends — I mean, I really felt a level of acceptance. And I was glad, you know, that they could just freely bring me, when you know in the back of my mind, what I represent is something that Paul has been hurt by. But in terms of what I would hope for everyone, because I’m a part of this too, is that we can be in a dialogue with ourselves about why we behave the way we behave, and the choices that we make, and who we love, and what we like and what we don’t like, so that we each fulfill God’s Will for us.

How I do that is going to be different than Paul because my background is different, my calling is different, the way I work things out between myself and God is different. And so I can understand the Church’s teaching. For me, I’ve worked that out. And I mean, I’ve grappled with things, I’m still grappling with some things, and I’m not perfect. And it’s the same for him. But I’m not God; I’m not his God. And if Paul invites me in to that process, that’s different.

I really had to reconcile the fact that I’m the one that has to make the decision about what I feel comfortable with in terms of talking about his lifestyle with Paul. I decided that my gut feeling would be the thing that would lead me. And I had to trust it.

At one point in the conversation Paul recalls:

I would kind of pray about it and talk to God, ask God: “Is this okay? I feel like I’m gay, and this is how I’m born and how I’m intended to be. Is this all right?” I kind of went through that. You know, once I was in a relationship with somebody and it was based on mutual respect and sharing and love, I thought now there’s no way God can be looking down and saying, “Nope, I don’t approve of that. That’s not healthy, that’s not good.” I thought if two people were loving each other with respect and sharing, I just couldn’t see how that could be any worse than a man and a woman doing the exact same thing. So I’m glad [that when she first visited my partner and I, Bernadette] noticed that it was just two people instead of two men, instead of a man and a woman.

And, lastly, here’s how Sr. Bernadette reflects on how knowing Paul has changed her.

It’s changed me in the sense that what had been an issue that was very clear for me, is not so clear anymore — not in terms of what the Church teaches but in terms of my own understanding, I guess, just because of how murky and messy — ‘messy’ is not really the right word — how mysterious, I think is the better word to use. I don’t have access to all of the experience for me to even figure it out, I guess. So I’m willing to just let it go. I’m willing to really believe . . . that God is a father. And He’s working out with each one of us our salvation. And going back to the fact that each of us is extremely wounded and broken, you know, regardless of the life that we profess or live. And I think I’m a lot more ready to leave it in His hands rather than try to correct someone.

. . . I guess the message I would like to give is that our main concern should be the person. And getting to know a person — allowing a person to reveal who he or she is rather than forcing my own revelation onto a person. And in that way, I think, in a relationship of openness and acceptance, I think we have the greatest ability to grow. And if there are ways that we need to be able to grow, I think that because of the love that a person has for another person, that it creates the ground for growth to be able to take place. And to allow myself to be challenged, too. I mean, because Paul and his partner, the gift that they’ve given me, has really challenged my understanding and has left me a lot like — I thrive on being sure — and I’m a lot less thriving on that.

See also the previous Wild Reed round-ups:
(Australian) Summer 2009
Fall 2007
Spring 2007

(Australian) Summer Round-Up

Last summer, back in the States, I meant to do a summer round-up of some of the insightful and interesting online articles that I’d come across. For one reason or another, however, I never got around to it.

Yet since I’m currently in Australia experiencing summer, I’ve decided to take the opportunity to finally do that “summer round-up”!

____________________

So let’s get this round-up underway with a shout-out to two new blogsites by “Terence,” a partnered gay Catholic man from London. Terence’s two blogs are Queering the Church and The Gay Disciple.

The former features a welcoming statement that includes the following succinct summation of the dilemma facing many gay Catholics:

As gay Catholics, we have often found ourselves double outsiders. As a sexual minority in a world where heterosexuality is routinely taken for granted, and even suffered ridicule, discrimination, violence or worse, we have often felt excluded, left out - or even invisible. Typically, we have felt even more rejected in the churches than in the secular world, with widespread condemnation of the 'sin' of homosexuality. This hostility from the religious establishment has led to a counter-reaction from many in the LGBT community, who see religion as the architect and driving force behind our 'oppression', and consequently refuse to have any truck with organised religion. The result for gay Catholics is too often, exclusion by both camps. I have often heard the observation from my gay Catholic friends, that it can be as difficult to be out as Catholic in the gay community, as it is to be out as gay in the world at large.

Terence envisions his blogs helping people find a support network for both virtual and face to face contact and discussion. I wish him all the best in such a worthy endeavour.

___________________________________

Another new blog that’s well worth investigating is that of Fr. Marty Kurylowicz’s, the focus of which is early childhood psychological development and the experience of growing up gay.

Notes Kurylowicz:

By exploring the early childhood psychological development of human sexuality, we come to a more accurate understanding about adult human sexuality. In this way, we can begin to understand how and why social and religious norms regarding human sexuality have been formed more out ignorance and fear. We are then able with knowledge to begin disabling this dangerous combination that is self-perpetuating, generation after generation, seriously limiting human beings from reaching their fullest potential.”

Over at the great Nihil Obstat blogsite, “Censor Librorum” offers an insightful overview of Kurylowicz’s personal journey as a gay Catholic priest who is advocating in a courageous and informed way for a renewed sexual theology within the Church:

Fr. Kurylowicz’ ministry for children growing up gay began during Holy Week of 1997, when he told his parishioners, the people of Holy Family Catholic Church in Sparta, Michigan, that he was a celibate homosexual. At that time, Fr. Kurylowicz had served as pastor for 12 years. He had struggled for years with his homosexuality.

The announcement came shortly before he took an educational leave to study psychology at the University of Michigan and Madonna University. Then-Bishop Robert Rose took no action against Kurylowicz, saying his views were in line with Catholic teaching.

Because he grew up gay himself, Fr. Kurylowicz understood the kind of harm done to children when they come under the influence of social and religious norms that convey to be “gay” is socially unacceptable and evil.

Since then Kurylowicz has spoken out to raise awareness of violence against gays and teach others homosexuality is not a choice but inboard trait. Church leaders still don’t understand that and contribute to gays’ poor self-esteem, he said.

“Kids as young as 4 or 5 know they’re different,” said Kurylowicz, “they grow up with this pervasive guilt which sabotages their growth and motivation.”

The church needs to discuss sexuality more candidly and heed Jesus’ teachings more closely, he said. “Jesus never said one word about homosexuality,” Kurylowicz said. “He said, ‘Be careful not to hurt one of these little ones of mine.’”

___________________________________

Nihil Obstat also offers an update on Fr. Roy Bourgeois, the Maryknoll priest and internationally known peace activist, who was excommunicated for participating at an ordination rite for women.

Vatican spokesman Fr. Frederico Lombardi said Bourgeois’ excommunication would be automatic, in other words, a latae sententiae excommunication, effective when the offense is committed. In other words, the person excommunicates himself or herself.

Excommunication is the most severe penalty under church law, cutting off a Catholic from receiving or administering the sacraments.

Fr. Bourgeois said he was following his conscience in his participation at the ordination rite, though it was clearly against the church’s teaching on women’s ordination.

“Conscience is very sacred,” Bourgeois said in his November 7, 2008 letter to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. “Conscience gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing …Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. And after much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing. I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.”

The author of Nihil Obstat, “Censor Librorum,” also poses some important questions in light of Fr. Bourgeouis’ excommunication:

Fr. Bourgeois was impelled to follow his conscience. He must have known by participating in the ceremony–particularly in the laying on of hands, one of the main symbols of ordination in the Catholic church – his actions would have some serious consequences.

But why did the Vatican feel compelled to enforce canon law and excommunicate him within three months of the event?

In comparison, I do not know of s single instance where a Catholic priest, bishop or other religious has been publicly excommunicated for the sexual abuse or rape of a minor.

Does that mean it’s more of a scandal for a man in good conscience to participate in the laying on of hands in a women’s ordination ceremony; than a man to lay hands on a child for his sexual gratification?

Is something off here?

___________________________________

Meanwhile, Joseph S. O’Leary offers extensive coverage on his blogsite of the Vatican’s objections to the UN’s efforts to universally decriminalize homosexuality.

This well-researched coverage is organized under three headings: “Vatican Objections to Human Rights Proposal” (which includes the full transcript of the UN’s proposed declaration of decriminalization of homosexuality); “The Criticisms and the Vatican Response;” “Defenders of the Vatican;” and “Press Releases and Internet Comments.” O’Leary has done an excellent job in compiling a vast range of information and opinion, and although the end result is lengthy, it’s well worth reading.

O’Leary’s November 18, 2008, commentary, Catholic Nervousness About Gay Marriage is also highly recommended – especially his response to and critique of the perspective of blogger “Pertinacious Papist.”

Also noteworthy is O’Leary’s excellent overview of the German reception of Pope Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth.

At one point O’Leary observes the following:

Emeritus Catholic theologian Hermann Häring said: “One thing is clear. In [Jesus’] lifetime he was not venerated as God. But the Pope does not want to know anything about this in his book. He projects representations that were invented later on back onto the Gospels... The Pope uses historical research when it fits his dogma. He ignores it when it contradicts him. What is all-important for him is to vindicate the Roman Church and the papal office. Even though his book is distinguished by great clarity and deep religiosity, his image of Jesus is a unified one: smoothed out, harmonious and very inward. It shows neither breaks nor rejections. In the eyes of the Pope, Jesus is very far from being a rebel, who protests against a maddeningly unjust world”

(See also the previous Wild Reed post: The Vatican’s Actions at the UN: “Sickening, Depraved, and Shameless”).

___________________________________

Commondreams.org has recently published some insightful articles on the situation in Gaza. Particularly recommended are The Gaza War is Completely Stoppable by Robert Naiman, Israel Can’t Bomb Its Way to Peace by Rosa Brooks, and Gaza Attacks: Murder with Impunity by Mustafa Qadri.

Also recommended is Joann Hari’s December 28 piece on The Huffington Post, The True Story Behind This War is Not the One Israel is Telling.

Meanwhile on the website of Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now! program, the perspectives of an Israeli lawmaker and an Israeli conscientious objector to the current crisis in the Middle East are shared and discussed.

___________________________________

I was last in Australia about two years ago. Since then while living in Minnesota (my other home since 1994) I haven’t kept as up-to-date with the gay scene here as much as I would’ve liked to. All the more reason to appreciate Australian gay advocate Rodney Croome’s overview of 2008.

Part of Croome’s summary includes the following:

Personal landmarks in 2008 included the inaugural speech of newly-elected openly-lesbian WA Senator Louise Pratt, the announcement of Justice Michael Kirby’s retirement, and Matthew Mitcham’s perfect dive at the Beijing Olympics.

Each of these achievers has been received respectfully in mainstream Australia, showing how far the nation has come.

But it was still considered risky for them to be out and to call, as each did, for their right to marry, reminding us how far we have yet to go until we have a truly fair and inclusive society.

(See also the previous Wild Reed posts: Making a Splash and Openly Gay Diver Wins Olympic Gold.)

___________________________________

For weeks now the blogosphere has been awash with talk about U.S. President-Elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration. Two commentaries on this controversy that I particularly appreciate and recommend are Timothy Kincaid’s The Newer, Gay Friendlier Rick Warren (Same as the Old Rick Warren with New Packaging) and Christopher Evans’ My Last Word on Rev. Warren: Better Words, More Loving Words.

___________________________________

And finally, the December 28, 2008, issue of the Boston Globe contains an interesting interview by Michael Paulson with Catholic priest, theologian, author – and “lightening rod” Richard McBrien.

Asked at one point why he was such a “lightening rod” for some Catholics, McBrien replies:

It might be because I have such a public image. I regard myself as a broad centrist. But to an extreme right-wing person, especially in religion, and within the Catholic Church, a centrist or a center/left person is automatically perceived as an extreme left-wing person, bordering on, if not actually in, heresy. But for every e-mail or blog that you would see that would condemn me . . . I can tell you I got a lot of e-mails and letters from Catholics who said that I had given them hope and that their teenage kids who had been alienated from the church said that, “If there were more priests like the guy we were watching on television, I'd still be a Catholic.”

Asked why he doesn’t leave the Church, McBrien responds:

Because it’s my church. It’s my home. And I was born in it. I’ve been a Catholic all my life. And I have affirmation from so many good people. I feel that I have a responsibility to them to continue working at it and doing the best I can.

Hmm, now that’s a response I can relate to!


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Fall Round-Up (2007)
Spring Round-Up (2007)

Opening Image: Hugh Jackman in Australia.

Libertas Ecclesiae

I’ve long admired and appreciated the perspective and writings of Fr. Joseph S. O’Leary (pictured at left). So much so, that I even quoted him (with his permission, of course!) in Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic School’s Perspective, the book I edited and which was published last April by Harrington Park Press. (For a review by Virginia Wilkinson, click here.)

Recently, O’Leary posted on his homepage an insightful reflection on “Governance and Freedom in Church and State.” I particularly appreciate his thoughts on the idea of a “participatory church,” especially as I’ve just started reading Robert McClory’s latest book, As It Was In the Beginning: The Coming Democratization of the Catholic Church.

Following is an excerpt from O’Leary’s reflection.

_______________________

The Church, as a community in history, with a mission not only for its own flourishing but also for challenging and changing the world, cannot be a mere “ism” vaguely shared by subscribers here and there. It has to give itself body and organize itself as a community. If this community lacks vital bonds and becomes merely an assemblage of isolated individuals regulated by an impersonal and inaccessible governing body, then it is dysfunctional and on its way to being dead. Full, adult participation is of the essence of church membership – participation in the inner life of the Church as a community, and participation in the Church’s mission to the world. When one reads of the Church’s “freedom of action” in Dignitatis Humanae (par. 13) one should think not of the freedom of hierarchs to intervene in politics, but of the freedom of the people of God to make their creative contribution to building up a just and peaceful human community.

People fear calls for the freedom of the Church because they see church action on society as uniquely focused on private morality, and they are not happy with the practical effects of this. In Italy, over the Christmas season, I heard the word ingerenze many times, referring to the constant interference of the Church, in the person of the Pope and of Cardinals Bertone, Ruini and Bagnasco, backed up by vocal politicians such as Senator Paola Binetti, in the running of the country. A quite powerfully argued book by a biologist and a philosopher (Castellacci and Pievani) warned of the peril this posed to Italian democracy. To a list of successes which include the shelving of the proposed civilian partnership law, the Church can now add the fall of the Prodi government and the likely return of Berlusconi, who seems to have a hot line to the Vatican and whose right-hand man, Gianni Letta, received the title of Gentleman of His Holiness on February 16, 2008. The threatened protests that prompted the cancellation of the papal visit to La Sapienza University were probably a response to this church activism.

A participative church could change this negative image, by its production of manifest good works. Every time bishops make statements that have no basis in representing a participative community they either sound ineffectually preachy or simply out of touch, as in the case of a recent statement from the Catholic communications office in Ireland deploring as “contrary to the common good” the reduction of Value Added Tax on condoms (more expensive in Ireland than anywhere else in Europe). Ad hoc reactions without proper reflection on the concrete context are not a responsible exercise of authority. Being seen to be “doing something,” to be “standing for something,” is not what authority is about.

To read Joseph O’Leary’s “Governance and Freedom in Church and State” in its entirety, click here.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• The Catholic Church and Gays: An Excellent Historical Overview
• Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
• Beyond Papalism
• Casanova-inspired Reflections on Papal Power – at 30,000 Ft.