Monday, January 21, 2008

Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.

.

In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, I’d like to highlight an important article by Deepti Hajela, entitled “Historians Fear MLK’s Legacy Being Lost.”

Following is an excerpt:

By taking on issues outside segregation, [such as poverty and U.S. militarism, King] lost the support of many newspapers and magazines, and his relationship with the White House suffered, said Harvard Sitkoff, a professor of history at the University of New Hampshire who has written a recently published book on King.

“He was considered by many to be a pariah,” Sitkoff said.

But he took on issues of poverty and militarism because he considered them vital “to make equality something real and not just racial brotherhood but equality in fact,” Sitkoff said.

Scholarly study of King hasn’t translated into the popular perception of him and the civil rights movement, said Richard Greenwald, professor of history at Drew University.

“We’re living increasingly in a culture of top 10 lists, of celebrity biopics which simplify the past as entertainment or mythology,” he said. “We lose a view on what real leadership is by compressing him down to one window.”

That does a disservice to both King and society, said Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University.

By freezing him at that point, by putting him on a pedestal of perfection that doesn’t acknowledge his complex views, “it makes it impossible both for us to find new leaders and for us to aspire to leadership,” Harris-Lacewell said.

To read Hajela’s article in its entirety, click here.

Image: Robert Shetterly

See also the previous Wild Reed post: Somewhere In Between

Uta Ranke-Heinemann on the Future of the Catholic Church


“I’m pessimistic . . . Nothing will change.”

– Uta Ranke-Heinemann, January 17, 2008


Jane Paulick of the German broadcasting corporation, Deutsche Welle (on the web at DW-World.de), recently interviewed theologian and author Uta Ranke-Heinemann about “where Germany’s Catholic Church was headed” after the announcement that Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the “liberal voice of German Catholicism,” was stepping down as head of the German Bishops’ Conference.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann was the first woman to ever hold a chair in Catholic theology, and the first woman to lose it. Born in 1927, the eldest daughter of former President Gustav Heinemann (1969 – 1974), Heinemann converted to Catholicism in 1953 and studied in Munich alongside Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), becoming a professor in 1970. In 1985 she began teaching at the University of Essen (now known as the Duisburg-Essen University) but lost her position and was excommunicated in 1987 after she pronounced the virgin birth a theological belief rather than a biological fact.

Like Hans Küng, who had similarly been silenced by the Vatican, Ranke-Heinemann transferred to a history of religion professorship. As far as I know, she continues to teach at the Duisburg-Essen University.

As you’ll see from Paulick’s interview, Heinemann takes a pessimistic view of the Church’s future. Well, at least the institutional Church’s future. As I’ve noted previously, there are many signs of hope in the Church beyond its institutional component. Accordingly, I’m not as pessimistic about “change in the Church” as Ranke-Heinemann, primarily because I don’t restrict “the Church” to the pope and the Vatican.

Mind you, if I were to have such a narrow understanding of the Church, then I could only describe it by borrowing the words used to describe the U.S. by
Angels in America character, Belize: “terminal, crazy, and mean.” That description pretty much sums up my view of the institutional Roman Catholic Church.

Following is Paulick’s interview of Ranke-Heinemann in its entirety. (It can also be viewed here, on the DW-World.de website.)

____________________________________


DW-World.de: Cardinal Karl Lehmann is often referred to as the liberal voice of German Catholicism. Is this a description you'd agree with?

Uta Ranke-Heinemann: Cardinal Lehmann is a tragic figure. He and I were both students of Karl Rahner, the most influential theologian of the 20th century. We were friends. He took me home on occasion – only as far as the front door, of course, but nonetheless – and we agreed on everything. These days, however, Karl Rahner is more or less dismissed by the bishops as a heretic. You can’t find his books anywhere. But in 1984, Lehmann wrote an introduction to an anniversary publication marking Rahners’s 80th birthday, in which he explicitly praised him and other theologians as forward-thinking and progressive on questions such as the Virgin Birth, brothers and sisters of Jesus and the matter of Joseph being the biological father of Jesus, the son of God. In 1987 he became head of the Bishops’ Conference, and this was the year I lost my professorship because I quoted Rahner’s views on the Virgin Birth. When I turned to Lehmann for help, he failed to respond. He clearly has one opinion for theology professors and another for the flock. So while I consider Lehmann likeable, I believe that he is a master of the double standard. On a number of key issues, he has one truth for the pope and the simple-minded, and another for theology professors such as Karl Rahner.

DW-World.de: Which ones?

Uta Ranke-Heinemann: The question of the Virgin Birth, use of condoms, abortion from the moment of conception. Personally I am against abortion, but not from the first moment of conception. Lehmann on the other hand called an embryo that's just seconds old an individual, i.e. something indivisible, which is scientific nonsense. . . . Now and then, Lehmann tried in vain to find compromises with Rome, which is why he is referred to as a liberal. But under the current pope and his predecessor, he allowed the gap between the shepherd and his flock to become ever wider.

DW-World.de: Lehmann has said he'd like to see generational change in the Catholic Church here in Germany. Do you think this will happen?

Uta Ranke-Heinemann: Nonsense – they don’t want generational change at all. All that matters is that they are all clones of the pope. Pope John Paul II only ever appointed clones and Benedict does the same. All the bishops are made in his image. Even the younger ones are no more modern or liberal. Characters such as Joachim Meisner [Editor’s note: the archbishop of Cologne] are all hand-picked. They all go along with exorcism at christening for infants and “great” exorcism for adults (in keeping with John Paul II’s World Catechism 1992, no. 1237, 1243, 1673), and all they’re interested in is the abortion issue. As part of the Church’s worship of the Virgin Mary, it believes in the ensoulment of human life at the first moment. Prior to 1869, it adhered to the principle of successive ensoulment and required excommunication for abortions only after 80 days. Rahner returned to the principle of successive ensoulment without attaching a particular time-frame to it. Today, the Church pulls the wool over people’s eyes, and in essence it comes down to double standards and dishonesty. And that’s my main reproach against Lehmann.

DW-World.de: Are there any liberal elements in the Catholic Church?

Uta Ranke-Heinemann: Not among the bishops. Pope John Paul II put paid to the old guard – either their authority to teach was rescinded – such as Hans Küng [Editors’ note: Küng rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility and was stripped of his license to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian] – or they died, like Karl Rahner, and were replaced by new ones who were closely vetted. One reason why the percentage of homosexuals in the Vatican is so high is because all that matters is that none of the bishops have a record of relationships with women. They must oppose birth control – and of course, women priests are unacceptable. Christianity has become reduced to a credo of celibacy.

DW-World.de: Does it really matter who heads the German Bishops Conference, given that the final authority is always with the pope?

Uta Rane-Heinemann: No! That’s the point. Lehmann was seen as liberal because he would complain a little, he would take a humanitarian stance now and then and bleat a little. He was never a fanatical hardliner like Meisner. But ultimately he always caved in. He kept his mouth shut. All that matters is the pope. The bishops are utterly incapacitated.

DW-World.de: Which reforms do you think the Catholic Church needs most?

Uta Ranke-Heinemann: The pope should not be infallible. But I’m pessimistic. This will never happen. Nothing will change. Anyone who doubts the anti-abortion and anti-condom stance, for example, will simply never be allowed to become a bishop.

DW-World.de: Why is the Catholic Church incapable of changing?

Uta Ranke-Heinemann: As an entity, the Catholic Church has taken 2000 years to achieve a theocratic concentration of power. The pope doesn’t just want to rule the Vatican, he wants to rule the world. He wants God acknowledged in state constitutions, but of course only his God – after all, a donkey sees God as a donkey, man sees God as man. But people seem to be able to accept this ridiculous fairytale figure of a pope. So long as one doesn’t ask too many questions, it’s all very easy to believe.


See also the previous Wild Reed post:
In the Garden of Spirituality: Uta Ranke-Heinemann

Recommended Off-site Links:
A 2005 interview with Uta Ranke-Heinemann.
“My Travels with Uta”
by John D. Spalding.
A summary of Ranke-Heinemann’s best-selling book, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.

For other Catholic theologians highlighted at The Wild Reed, visit:
John Allen on the Censuring of Jon Sobrino
Paul Collins and Marilyn Hatton
“The Non-Negotiables of Human Sex”– An Interview with Daniel Helminiak
In the Garden of Spirituality: Joan Timmerman
Mary Hunt and Our Catholic “Stonewall Moment”

See also the related Wild Reed posts:
Beyond Papalism
Crisis? What Crisis?
Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
It’s Time We Evolved Beyond Theological Imperialism
“Uncle Vince” is at it Again
Beyond a PC Pope
Australian Bishop’s “Radical” Call for Reform
The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome


Saturday, January 19, 2008

Tips for Thinking Catholics

One of several Catholic blogsites* that I regularly visit is Crystal’s Perspective: A Catholic Convert’s Thoughts.

Crystal has a real gift for selecting and sharing the very best from the writings of Catholic thinkers, theologians, and authors. And her own reflections are always heartfelt and insightful.

Recently, Crystal shared excerpts from an article by Tom Reese, S.J., entitled “Survival Guide for Thinking Catholics: Ten Tips.”

I particularly resonated with the following “tips” from Reese:

We are a believing community with 2,000 years of tradition and history. We need to know our history – our triumphs and our failures, our saints and our sinners. A study of history helps us take the long view. Things have been worse, things can get better. For example, prior to the 20th century, a Catholic understanding of the Bible appeared to be in conflict with science. Today, contemporary biblical scholarship not only has eliminated this conflict, but helped us to better understand the Bible. Imagine what is going to be the situation 100 years from now as people look back on our time. How many of our theological debates and doubts will seem as silly as those caused among Christians when they discovered that the Earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa?

It is important to distinguish between law and doctrine. If you are a conservative and want a return to the pre Vatican II liturgy, don’t let anyone tell you that you are a heretic. If you are a liberal and believe that married men should be ordained, don’t let anyone tell you that you are a heretic. The question of married priests, the question of Latin in the liturgy, these are not doctrinal issues. These are matters of canon law and liturgical law. Laws have changed over time, laws can change again.

Understand the level of authority of a doctrinal position with which you disagree. Popes have only made two infallible declarations since Vatican I, the time when the infallibility of the Pope was defined: on the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Some people tend to give all Vatican statements a definitive or infallible status, and that is just not the case.

Today we see that even longstanding teachings of the church can sometimes change. The church now teaches that capital punishment is wrong, whereas for centuries it had no problem with it; in fact, popes executed people in the papal states. Likewise, the Church is rethinking its position on limbo. Most theologians now believe that unbaptised children go to heaven. This is not what I learned in the Baltimore catechism.

Know how to interpret the words in doctrinal statements. Catholics in the last generation have learned from scripture scholars that it is a mistake to understand the bible in a fundamentalist way. It is important to study the historical and cultural context of the writing, the literary style, and the audience to which it was addressed. The same is true of doctrinal statements. When a Vatican document says that homosexuals are intrinsically “disordered,” we tend to think of this as a psychological description, whereas the authors meant it as a philosophical description. You may still disagree, but it is important to understand what you are disagreeing with.

Sometimes the Church uses words that are open to multiple interpretations as a way of covering over differences and maintaining unity. This was certainly done at the second Vatican council. Paul VI wanted documents approved by what amounted to almost unanimity. Compromise and ambiguity were important to gain conservative votes. Problems arise today when this historical fact is ignored and conservatives go back and give unambiguous interpretations to words and phrases that were purposely ambiguous at the time.

In my parents’ day there were only two options when facing questions about your faith: “Accept what the Church says or leave.” This is more an Irish or Northern European response than a Catholic response. Certainly this is not the way Italians and Africans live their faith. Italians pick and choose just like the classic cafeteria Catholics in the United States. The only difference is Italians don’t question the Church’s authority publicly; they simply ignore it and do what they want. The response is much more cultural than theological.

We need to recognize there will always be disagreements in the Church because there have always been disagreements in the Church. The Acts of the Apostles discloses that Paul disagreed with Peter at the council of Jerusalem. What I find so delightful in this story is that the disagreement was resolved through a compromise: Gentiles would not have to be circumcised, but they would have to refrain from blood sacrifice to idols (no longer a problem) and from adultery (still somewhat of a problem).

In the Catholic Church, we believe that an informed conscience is our highest authority. We also believe in the importance of humility. One must pray not simply for the conversion of ones’ opponents, but for the conversion of oneself. Despite their weakness and sinfulness, Christians have faith in the word of God that shows them the way. Christians have hope, based on Christ’s victory over sin and death and his promise of the spirit. And Christians have love, that inspires them to forgiveness and companionship at the Lord’s table. Any survival strategy for thinking Catholics must be based on the virtues of faith, hope, and love.


* Along with Crystal’s Perspective, some other Catholic blogsites that I read and would recommend include:

And finally, although I don’t always agree with his theological views, Terry Nelson’s two sites, Abbey-Roads and Abbey-Roads 2, often contain writings and reflections that are interesting, heartfelt, and, at times humorous (in an off-beat kinda way!).


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
What it Means to be Catholic
Reflections on the Primacy of Conscience
The Question of an “Informed” Catholic Conscience
Chris McGillion Responds to the “Exacerbating” Actions of Cardinal Pell
Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
To Whom the Future of the Catholic Church Belongs
Authentic Catholicism: The Antidote to Clericalism
The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome
Signs of Hope and Creativity


Friday, January 18, 2008

Far from "Innocuous"

Earlier this week, the January 2008 issue of The Progressive Catholic Voice online journal was published. It contains a number of interesting and insightful articles – including an in-depth investigation by Paula Ruddy on the efforts by the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis to deny victims of child sex abuse the right to sue for damages after the age of 24.

Also included in the January 2008 Progressive Catholic Voice is the transcript of the powerful talk given by peace activist Peter Thompson at the recent Candlelight Vigil for the Children of Iraq and Other Child Victims of War. (For images of this event, click
here.)

CPCSM-cofounder David McCaffrey also has a piece in the latest Progressive Catholic Voice, in which he responds to a recent commentary in the Star Tribune by University of St. Thomas professor Stephen Heaney. In this commentary, Heaney – who, incidentally, sits on the board of the Archdiocese’s Faith in Action (a.k.a Courage) program – attempts to defend recent statements on homosexuality by Coadjutor Archbishop John Nienstedt.

As I’m sure you’ll agree, David McCaffrey’s well-researched and reasoned response methodically and effectively demolishes Heaney’s argument. In doing so, it also exposes the Archbishop’s statements and, by extension, the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, as being both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I think that as Catholics we can do better.

Following is David McCaffrey’s response to Stephen Heaney.

_________________________________

Far from “Innocuous”
A response to Stephen’s Heaney’s defense
of
Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt’s
“innocuous” statements on homosexuality


By David J. McCaffrey
The Progressive Catholic Voice
January 2008


David J. McCaffrey is an honors graduate of the University of St. Thomas (1969, magna cum laude) and has spent almost 30 years working in medical and social science research at the University of Minnesota. He is a co-founder of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), an independent lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) education and pastoral ministry group that has worked with local archdiocesan agencies, parishes, and schools for over 27-year years.

In his December 29 commentary in the Star Tribune, University of Minnesota professor Stephen J. Heaney implied that there are a small number of people who oppose the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, as recently articulated by Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt in his column in The Catholic Spirit. Furthermore, Heaney asserts that Nienstedt’s column about homosexuality, far from being of concern or controversy, is in fact “innocuous.” That particular column includes the following “innocuous” statement of the archbishop’s:

Those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil and, if they do so knowingly and willingly, are guilty of mortal sin. They have broken communion with the church and are prohibited from receiving holy Communion until they have had a conversion of heart, expressed sorrow for their action and received sacramental absolution from a priest.


I assert that Heaney is wrong on both accounts. Not a small number of people oppose the type of anti-gay speech from religious leaders like Archbishop Nienstedt, and such speech is far from “innocuous.”

For example, as for Heaney’s implication that there is a small number opposing Nienstedt’s articulation of the Church's teaching on homosexuality, in a Fall 2007 Harris Study of heterosexual Americans, 56 % of all those surveyed – and 60 % of those aged 18 to 44 – said people should be more supportive of equal rights for gay people. Further, according to the poll’s findings, a majority of Americans (71 %) said they have spoken out against anti-gay comments, saying they felt it was “the right thing to do.”

Also, according to the September 2007
study among young people in the U.S., aged 16 to 29, by Christian pollster George Barna, 91% of non-Christians and 80% of churchgoers say present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” And that “they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians.” Such research results do not represent small numbers of people, as Professor Heaney would have us believe.

Refuting Heaney’s assertion that Nienstedt’s column is “innocuous” is a 2003 national survey of adults by the prestigious Pew Research Center for The People & The Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. This study found that “people who hear clergy talk [negatively] about homosexuality are more likely to have highly unfavorable views of gays and lesbians.” If that is true, then statements such as Nienstedt’s, from a religious leader, are far from “innocuous.”

How many local Catholics, including families with LGBT members, have been encouraged to hold negative views toward their loved ones after reading or hearing Nienstedt’s statements? How many more coworkers, neighbors, and even family members will now feel more self-righteous permission to further discriminate against members of sexual minorities who are trying to live honest and self-actualized lives?

Beyond the significance and the impact of Nienstedt’s recent statement on homosexuality, we need to seriously consider both this statement’s substance – that those who encourage and support gay people are cooperating in a grave evil and thereby are guilty of mortal sin; and its foundation – that persons who are innately homosexual and attempt to live honest, self-actualized lives, as their consciences dictate, are “intrinsically disordered.” I assert, as does virtually every reputable medical and mental health professional organization, that homosexuality is innate and not based on choice and that it cannot and should not be changed through unsafe and unethical methods known as “reparative” or “conversion" therapy.

Therefore, the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered” and that those who find themselves to be constitutively homosexual must maintain life-long sexual abstinence is clearly based on outdated science and must go the same way as the Church’s past teachings on the solar system, slavery, the dynamics of human reproduction, and the status of women – all of which were also based upon outdated science.

For any academic institution to be relevant and credible, its curriculum must remain consonant with the findings of today’s human sciences. In the case of a Catholic academic institution like the University of St. Thomas, its curriculum should also be open to theological developments that are informed by the sciences and the lived experience of the faithful. In this way, such academic institutions will continue to grow with society and with the living faith of the people of God.

The recent decision by St. Thomas’ board of trustees to proactively democratize its board structure by making the chairman and vice-chairman positions electable represents one such change to ensure the University’s relevance and credibility. Traditionally, both board positions had been held ex-officio by the Archbishop and the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, respectively. However, based upon advice from the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities following a review of St. Thomas’ board structure, the University’s trustees voted in October to make the board’s by-law changes.

Another clear sign of such progress would be for the University administration and faculty to cease clinging to concepts about human nature, and especially human sexuality, that are based upon medieval notions seriously out of sync with today’s mainstream science and the authentic life experiences of gay people of faith. Such a change would greatly assist these students as they follow their conscience in seeking honest and fulfilling lives that are true to how God created them while enabling them to utilize their many talents to the fullest in responding to the multiple needs of today’s world.

David J. McCaffrey is also The Progressive Catholic Voice’s technical editor and a founding member of its editorial team.


Recommended Off-site Link:
The Progressive Catholic Voice


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
CPCSM Co-Founder Responds to “Not Catholic” Assertion
St. Francis of Assisi: Dancer, Rebel, Archetype (to read about the genesis of The Progressive Catholic Voice).
What Scientists in the U.K. Are Saying About Homosexuality
“Gaydar,” “Gendermaps,” and the “Fundamentally Social Purpose” of Homosexuality
From Rome to Minneapolis, Dialogue Is What’s Needed
Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory


Thursday, January 17, 2008

From Rome to Minneapolis, Dialogue is What's Needed


Some Catholics are crying foul and insisting that “leftist agitators” have “forced” Pope Benedict XVI to cancel a speaking engagement at the prestigious La Sapienza University in Rome. Yet, in reality, no one “forced” the pope to do anything. He is the pope, after all! No, he (and/or his minders) obviously chose not to go, which, when you think about it, isn’t that surprising.

I’ve heard it said that in the 1960s, Benedict was actually quite progressive. Yet, apparently, his witnessing of the student uprisings throughout Europe in 1968 ensured that he made a sharp turn to the right. Perhaps the prospect of witnessing the planned protest of students and faculty at La Sapienza was too much for the aging pontiff. Then again, those entrenched in feudal systems of power have always viewed with suspicion and hostility the collective voice of the democratic spirit. (Let’s not forget that the First Vatican Council in the 1870s condemned democracy!)

But, hey, aren’t “liberals” supposed to be all for tolerance and diversity?, one hears supporters of the pope cry. It’s a rhetorical question, of course. Those who pose it aren’t interested in hearing an actual response, let alone interested in dialogue. They already have their answer. As Gerald at The Cafeteria is Closed blogsite pontificates: “[It’s] always the same . . . leftist agitators keep conservatives from speaking.” To which I can only respond with the words of comedienne Catherine Tate’s crusty character, Nan Taylor: “What a load of old shit.”

Yes, “liberals” are for diversity. And I’m assuming that’s why those at La Sapienza (and elsewhere) object to the narrow, rigid, and dogmatic theology promulgated by Benedict. I mean, would there have been an opportunity for audience members to respectfully question and challenge the perspective of the pope? (My experience of “official” church forums leads me to conclude that, no, there would not have been such an opportunity.) Yet we rarely hear conservatives protest this type of silencing.

Also, if no opportunity for comments and questions was offered, than it has to be said that before the pope opted not to visit La Sapienza, many others were aware that they would not have a voice, would not have an opportunity to offer any kind of response to whatever the pope had to say. I would not be a bit surprised if this is what fueled the concern and outrage of a good number of those protesting. Many may well have questioned if a modern-day public university, one that values and promotes diversity, is an appropriate place for a feudal lord to hold court.


Others, however, obviously think it is. Take, for instance, the following comment left by Dan Hunter at The Caferteria is Closed: “I would beat the skulls of those arse walloping nursery school brats with a truncheon. Long live His Holiness the Awesomely Supreme Pontiff Pope Benedict XVI!!!” Like a lot of things one reads on conservative-leaning blogs, it’s hard to know if this guy is serious or not.

Another blogger, James Layne a.k.a. the Faithful Rebel (an oxymoron if ever there was one!), insists that those protesting the pope’s visit to La Sapienza did so in response to a comment he made seventeen years ago, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, that called the heresy trial of the 17th-century astronomer Galileo “reasonable.” In reality, the future pope was quoting another philosopher in that passage, part of a long speech on the Catholic Church and Europe.


More to the story

If this alone were the reason for the protest then it would indeed be lamentable. Yet Layne fails to mention the perspective of Andrea Frova, a physicist and one of the La Sapienza academics who protested the pope’s visit. According to Frova, the issue goes beyond Galileo to the pope’s stance on a range of contemporary scientific issues – from in-vitro fertilization to stem cell research. Frova insists that the Pope would be welcome at the university to debate these issues, but not to deliver a speech in which there would be no opportunity for discussion or response. Sounds reasonable to me.

Incidentally, Layne accompanies his post about the protest of the pope by Italian professors and students with images of angry Islamic extremists protesting the pope’s 2006 comments about the prophet Muhammud! Apparently, all who dare question or protest the pope are lumped together as rabid “extremists” and “fanatics.” (Hmm. What was it again that Nan Taylor said?)

The whole tone of Layne’s commentary is one of self-righteous indignation: How dare anyone attempt to question the pope, let alone seek to prevent him from speaking! This is rich, indeed, coming from Layne, a man who has repeatedly boasted of how he played a key role in ensuring that a Catholic lesbian and her 82-year-old straight father were prevented from sharing their story at a Catholic church here in the Twin Cities.


Reason and faith, truth and duty

Now, without doubt, Benedict XVI is a strong (if narrowly focused) intellectual who has emphasized the importance of reason in the practice of faith. Yet the question has to be asked: whose “reason” is actually being utilized? When it comes to the issue of, say, homosexuality, the reasoning offered by modern science and the lived experiences of homosexual people certainly isn’t. Rather, it is simply discounted and dismissed by the pope.

Here in the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis, Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt has issued statements that have similarly discounted and dismissed the experiences and insights of gay people. His statements, however, have not gone unopposed. Last month, for instance, over 300 Catholics braved icy weather to stand on the steps of the cathedral in solidarity with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Catholics.

Archbishop Nienstedt’s response to this show of solidarity has been to declare that, with regards the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, it’s not up to him to change anything. Indeed, during a recent visit of the Archbishop to a local Catholic high school, a student posed the following question to him: “If you could change anything about the Church, what would it be?” Nienstedt’s response was that it wasn’t in his (and presumably anyone’s power) to change anything about the Church. It’s all be set up, just as it should be, by God. It’s “beautiful” just as it is. Not only is change not possible, it also should not be even desired.

It’s not surprising, then, that immediately after the Vigil for Solidarity, Archbishop Nienstedt, in his regular column in The Catholic Spirit, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese (which, incidentally, prevents the sharing of certain perspectives), declared that his “duty before God as a priest and as a bishop is to set forth, with clarity and conviction, the truth as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and as it has been handed down throughout the church’s history.” He finds support in this “duty” in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium: “Bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such ways that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.” (Lumen Gentium 20.2)

In response to Archbishop Nienstedt, the editorial team of The Progressive Catholic Voice online journal published the following in its regular “Dialoguing with the Archbishop” column:

We appreciate your sincerity in exercising your duty to teach. We know, of course, that the teaching you refer to, and, in particular, the language this teaching employs, i.e., the “intrinsic disorder” of the homosexual orientation, is not yours alone. As expressed in this way, it has been the teaching of the Church since 1986, and it appears in the Roman Catechism. Nevertheless, we question it and ask you to work with us to change it.

We are not asking you, as you fear, to compromise truth. Truth is discovered through time. Tradition evolves. The Church is currently teaching in Section 2358 of the Catechism, that homosexuals should be treated with compassion and sensitivity. That represents evolution of the tradition. There is no reason that the moral teaching on this matter of “intrinsic disorder” should not evolve further, and there is plenty of scientific evidence and moral/pastoral reasoning that it should evolve quickly.

Your duty as a bishop to be a stand-in for Christ, which you have quoted from Lumen Gentium, is an awesome responsibility. Doesn’t it stand to reason that a duty of such magnitude requires from you more than insisting on a formulation of moral teaching that is widely questioned by faithful people who are earnestly seeking to live moral lives? Doesn’t a duty of such magnitude include having the imagination and sensitivity to discuss, at least, a moral teaching that many clearly see as being out of line with Christ’s admonition to love one another?

Our duty to listen to you is also an awesome one. We think it requires more than just being “yes” persons. We take our duty seriously in trying to reason with you about this teaching that impacts so many lives. These LGBT people are our loved ones, our children. We rejoice with them in their finding partners to support them in living good lives. We believe we also stand as Christ through our baptism and our Christian life. We believe that on every moral issue we have to study the pertinent facts, reason about their implications, and consult the experience of those who are most impacted by the teaching. Do you agree with this method of arriving at moral positions? And if not, why?

Of course, such comments and questions are also appropriate for Pope Benedict XVI. Yet judging from the latest incident in Rome, it’s clear the that pope does not wish to engage with those who have experiences and insights that call into question the teachings of the Church.


An invitation to listen, talk, and learn

It certainly seems that Archbishop Nienstedt is following a similar path. But wait! He has the opportunity later this month to show that he’s capable of embodying a more open and receptive outlook, that he sees the value of dialogue. How? Well, he has been invited to a January 29 event hosted by the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), one entitled, “The Myth of Conversion Therapy.”

The featured speaker at this event will be John C. Gonsiorek, PhD., a clinical psychologist who has worked with LGBT clients for thirty years, and a past president of the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues (a division of the American Psychological Association). Dr. Gonsiorek is also the author of several books, including Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy and A Guide to Psychotherapy with Gay and Lesbian Clients.

As executive coordinator of CPCSM, I recently sent an invitation to Archbishop Nienstedt to attend our January 29 event. After all, he did say upon his appointment as Coadjutor Archbishop that: “I see myself as a learner. I’ll come here, I’ll listen, I’ll talk to people . . . This next year will be a sharp learning curve for me.”

Accordingly, part of CPCSM’s invitation to the Archbishop to “come,” “listen,” “talk,” and “learn” reads as follows:

It is our understanding that while serving as bishop in Detroit, you invited Joseph Nicolosi, co-founder of theNational Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), to speak as an “expert” on the issue of homosexuality. We have serious concerns about the credibility of NARTH, especially in terms of its advocacy of “conversion therapy” for gay people.

Accordingly, we invite you to join us on the evening of January 29 as we seek to understand the most current thinking of the scientific community on this particular issue. There will, of course, be an opportunity for you to share your perspective on this issue and to dialogue with other faithful seekers about their experiences and insights related to this particular matter.

Some friends of mine insist that the Archbishop won’t even respond to CPCSM’s invitation, much less attend the January 29 presentation. Yet I, with my “valiant” hope, prefer to think otherwise.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
Beyond Papalism
Uncle Vince is at it Again
It’s Time We Moved Beyond Theological Imperialism
Authentic Catholicism: The Antidote to Clericalism
Beyond a PC Pope
What It Means to be Catholic
Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory

Monday, January 14, 2008

"A Valiant Effort"


“A valiant effort.” That’s how Virginia Wilkinson describes my attempts to “remain positive and hopeful” about the Roman Catholic Church one day “develop[ing] a more positive evaluation of homosexual activity.” (And given my longtime admiration for cartoonist Hal Foster’s noble and heroic creation, Prince Valiant, I couldn’t be happier with Wilkinson’s choice of words!)

Wilkinson’s observation is contained in her comprehensive summary and review of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective (Harrington Park Press, 2007) – the book that I compiled, edited, and (in large part) wrote.

It’s also a book that
Archbishop Angelo Amato of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a letter last June to Archbishop Harry Flynn of the St. Paul/Minneapolis Archdiocese, declared “not suitable to be used in Catholic schools.” Why? Because it “calls into question the teaching of the Church on homosexuality.” (Heaven forbid we allow questioning within our Catholic educational system!)

Now, Archbishop Flynn made no secret of Amato’s letter (indeed, he had been instructed to share its contents with “those involved [locally] in Catholic education”). As a result, it wasn’t long before a copy found its way to me. I’m actually mentioned in this letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ensuring that it’s now framed and given pride of place in my office! After all, as a friend remarked: “If you’re pissing off the former Office of the Inquisition, you must be doing something right!” Hmm, I shudder to think, however, of what would have happened to me
500 years ago!)

Wilkinson’s review is the second I’ve discovered online. I’ve written about the first one here.

Following is Wilkinson’s review in its entirety. (It can also be viewed on the
Education Review website - though minus the cool Prince Valiant graphic.)

_______________________________________


Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students:
A Catholic Schools Perspective
By Michael J. Bayly
Harrington Park Press, 2007
ISBN 1-56023-606-X

Reviewed by Virginia Wilkerson
University of South Florida
July 4, 2007

Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective, edited by Michael Bayly, is an attempt to address the concerns of educators placed in the inherently difficult position of wanting to nurture and protect the LGBT youth in their school populations while at the same time adhering to the tenets of the Catholic Church. Bayly’s work is intended as both a Safe Training handbook and a resource guide for Catholic school teachers and staff, and thus provides a comprehensive introduction to the diverse and complex issues surrounding the presence of LBGT persons in the church community and in associated schools.

The underlying philosophy espoused in the book is that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in Catholic schools (as in all schools) deserve the understanding and respect of their fellow students, and that it is the responsibility of educators to create safe and nurturing space for these all-too-often persecuted teens. From a Catholic schools perspective, there is an almost insurmountable dichotomy between the church’s traditional mandate to minister to those in need, including those marginalized by society, and the equally strong mandate to preserve and support official church doctrine. As an ongoing dialogue on the church’s position on LGBT issues continues, Catholic educators remain in the frontlines of the battleground for respect and acceptance of all the students they serve. As Bayly states in his Foreword [actually, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton wrote the Foreword], “ cultivating deeper understanding and compassion for others who are perceived to be different benefits us all – as individuals and as communities.”

The Preface of the text contains background information about the context within which the collection of strategies, resources, experiences and reflections contained in the book was compiled. The original impetus for Bayly’s specifically targeted effort grew in response to programs initiated in two public school [systems] in the Twin Cities area in the early-to-mid 1990’s: “Out for Equity” in St. Paul and “Out for Good” in Minneapolis. The Safe Staff framework and model was developed and used in these programs, and eventually adapted for use in area Catholic [high] schools. Similar training for educators and staff has since been widely implemented in other areas of the country, and has expanded to include higher education settings.

In developing this specific guidebook, Bayly points to the contribution of an informal group of teachers, counselors, administrators, parents, students, and alumnae who used their personal experiences and insights as a springboard for the compilation of the material contained in this text. Also cited is the pivotal role of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), a grassroots, nonprofit, independent coalition based in the Twin cities, which is referenced throughout the text. Added to the original material used for the experimental programs of the Safe Schools Initiative locally is additional material covering pastoral care issues as they relate to church teachings and boundary issues encountered in the context of ministering to students.

The initial training sessions conducted by the Safe Schools Initiative involved members of CPCSM planning and facilitating fourteen four-session sequences of training at seven area Catholic [high] schools, aimed at creating safe and nurturing environments for LGBT students. Empowered by this training, individual teachers and students spearheaded additional efforts to address the needs and concerns of LGBT students. However, Bayly does acknowledge the “backlash” resulting from the Safe Schools Initiative and training; unfortunately, some conservative members of the Catholic community responded to efforts to minister to LGBT students as training staff to promote the LGBT agenda (although it is never made completely clear what that agenda might be). As Bayly states, “this vocal minority has had a chilling effect on safe staff training initiatives within many schools;” still, the very presence of this text as a guidebook for continuing these efforts constitutes a ray of hope for those determined to meet the challenge.

The next section of the book introduces the training session materials and prepares session facilitators for embarking on the difficult task of enlightening training participants in a respectful and approachable manner. Again, it is emphasized that “the richness of our Roman Catholic tradition teaches that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God” (p. 1) and that LGBT students are included as children of God; yet it is also acknowledged that, in the language of the Vatican, persons with a homosexual orientation are “intrinsically disordered.” [Actually, the book notes that the Vatican teaches that the homosexual orientation is disordered, not the homosexual person.] Bayly emphasizes here as well that human sexuality is an integral part of human identity, and is much more than just specific sex acts. Readers of this text are asked to prepare for the journey on which this book will embark by reflecting on what it would be like to remove all pictures and other clues of one’s human connections from one’s work space, and to imagine a Monday morning office conversation in which everything that might reveal those human connections must be hidden. The realization that this is what closeted LGBT persons have to do every second of their lives is a powerful introduction to the remainder of the text, which contains the guidelines for Safe Staff training for Catholic educators.

The training materials are divided into five planned training sessions entitled: “Laying the Foundations,” “Defining Safe Staff,” “Coming Out,” “The LGBT Reality and the Catholic Church,” and “The Classroom Setting and Beyond.” Each section begins with a brief list of topics to be explored in that session, a list of equipment and resources, and a list of the handouts associated with that session. The handouts are provided at the end of each section, on separate pages in preparation for duplication. There is also a reading assignment at the end of each section of the text that is to be read by the participants before the next training session. Each section of the book also provides detailed sequential guidelines for the facilitator.

Section One, “Laying the Foundations,” introduces training participants to some basic information about human sexuality, including references to the work of Kinsey: sexual orientation is a fundamental part of human identity, and occurs along a continuum of heterosexual/homosexual preference. Instructions for the facilitator include a strong statement that “sexual identity is the manner in which people are in relation to everyone, that is, their manner of being in the world.”(p. 11). By understanding sexual orientation as an ontological reality and not a matter of choice, and being reminded that the Church is obligated to provide pastoral care to all within the church community, this first training session is designed to begin the process of preparing teachers and others in the educational setting with the tools they need to work with LGBT and questioning students. Somewhat uncomfortably, this first session introduces the reader (and the training participants) to the fundamental contradiction under which the entire text labors: the official teachings of the Catholic Church are virtually impossible to integrate with true acceptance of LGBT students as whole, functioning persons. Some key handouts provided in the context of Session One include a list of common fallacies and stereotypes about LGBT persons, a list of definitions about human sexuality, and some statistical information about LGBT youth in Catholic schools. The reading assignment to be distributed at the end of Session One is the transcript of a panel discussion led by three young LGBT Catholics at a CPCSM meeting in October of 2000, which highlights some of the real and ongoing issues facing these young people.

Session Two, “Defining Safe Staff,” explores homophobia and heterosexism in the context of what constitutes a safe and welcoming school environment for LGBT students. Handouts include information about how people react to difference in others, and how heterosexism is a part of the entrenched power structure that underlies Western culture. Many useful role-play scenarios are provided for discussion. Again, as in most of the training materials, the author is blocked in his effort to nurture and support LGBT students in the specific environment of the Catholic school because of the proscription of homosexual activity in official church doctrine. Would-be facilitators reading the text are reminded to “note that support and affirmations of LGBT students are not the same as promotion of homosexuality” (p. 42).

Session Three begins with the sentence: “in its broadest sense, the term ‘coming out’ is all about growing in awareness and acceptance of oneself”(p. 59). The material for this session includes a wealth of information and suggestions about pastoral care and sensitive support for questioning and newly self-identified LGBT youth. Session participants are introduced to the common stages of coming out that are experienced, and led through an in-depth exploration of possible boundary violations associated with helping young people deal with such personal and intimate life issues as sexuality and identity. This is probably the section of the text that is least restricted by the inherent contradiction of supporting LGBT persons while condemning them to a life without the fullness of an intimate, on-going relationship. There is no ambiguity encountered in role plays about supporting students as they decide how and when to come out, or discouraging students from dangerous behavior such as unsafe sex with strangers. One role play scenario, however, which begins with “you are a closeted LGBT teacher” (p. 61) could well be a point of crisis for a training participant actually in that situation.

Session Four is the point in the text and in the proposed training where the reader (and the training participant) really feel the depth of the dilemma in which Catholic educators and parents find themselves on the issue of helping the young people whom they love. The reading assignments to be distributed at the end of Session Three include: an address by an archbishop, a high school student’s letter entitled “Is God Homophobic?”, and a Catholic parent’s perspective on church teachings. Contained in this last reading is a statement which seems to touch the heart of the controversy in which Catholic educators seeking to nurture LGBT youth are embroiled: “What cannot be ignored is that most homosexual teens, like most heterosexual teens, anticipate loving, long-term relationships that involve sexual expression. The burden of the institutional Church’s insistence that homosexual relationships can never include a sexual dimension is so onerous that it must be challenged.” (p. 81)

Also quoted in this loving and insightful letter from parent Darlene White is a statement from psychologist and Franciscan nun, Fran Ferder, “The hallmark of sexual holiness is not sexual abstinence; it is reverence in relationships” (p. 81). It is easy to imagine that, having read the required materials before beginning Session Four of the training, participants would arrive for this session in a somewhat troubled frame of mind. Included in the list of topics for Session Four is a close look at what the Bible says about homosexuality, which is summed up by the statement, “All that one can say is that the biblical record does not rule out the possibility that the Church will develop a more positive evaluation of homosexual activity” (p. 88). At the present time, however, members of the Catholic community, including the teens with whom Catholic educators work, are directed to eschew homosexual activity in any context as preventing “one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God” (p. 89). In compiling the material contained in this most difficult section of the text, Bayly makes a valiant effort to remain positive and hopeful about future possibilities, while giving training participants accurate information about the reality for today’s LGBT Catholics. To his credit, readers and training participants end this section with a thorough familiarity with the conflicts with which they must cope in creating safe space for LGBT and questioning students in Catholic schools.

The final section of the text, entitled “The Classroom Setting and Beyond”, prepares teachers and staff to take practical steps to change the experience of gay and lesbian teens in the immediate future. In spite of the difficult position in which educators find themselves, this text provides usable information about classroom consciousness raising activities, guidelines for talking with parents, and suggestions for starting a support group or Gay Straight Alliance in the school setting. Ultimately, each educator is in control of his or her classroom, and it is hoped that many small efforts will somehow add up to a safer and more nurturing environment for sexual diversity.

A final note: throughout the text, the acronym “LGBT” is used, meaning “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.” Although it is recognized in places in the text that gender identity and sexual preference are not the same issue, the needs and problems of transgender persons, especially young people, can be very different from those of lesbian and gay persons. Perhaps Michael Bayly will, at some future time, apply his thorough research methods and engaging prose to the creation of a companion text addressing transgender and the Catholic perspective.

About the Reviewer: Virginia Wilkerson is a doctoral student in Literature at the University of South Florida in Tampa. She has a B.F.A. in Dance and a Master’s degree in English Education, and founded the first Gay Straight Alliance in Marion County, Florida.



Image: Prince Valiant by Hal Foster.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
“A Courageous Document”
Out and About - June 2007
Confronting Classroom Homophobia
A Catholic Bibliography on Gay Issues


Saturday, January 12, 2008

Lavender Magazine's “Vigil for Solidarity” Coverage

You might recall that in a previous post I said I’d share Lavender magazine’s coverage of the December 2 Vigil for Solidarity with LGBT Catholics - an event that drew over 300 people to the front steps of the Cathedral of St. Paul.

Well, I've been a bit tardy, but here it is! As you’ll see, it was originally published in the December 21 issue of the magazine and is basically an interview with myself and Mary Lynn Murphy (right) – two of the key organizers of the vigil.


The photos that accompany Lavender’s coverage were taken by the magazine’s photographer, Sophia Hantzes, while I’ve added the links within this reprinting of the article.

_____________________


Vigil for Solidarity Protests New Archbishop
by E.B. Boatner
Lavender
December 21, 2007


“Those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil and, if they do so knowingly and willingly, are guilty of mortal sin.”

— Coadjutor Archbishop John Nienstadt
November 11, 2007




Above: Mary Lynn Murphy (right) stands with Phil and Randi Reitan and Soulforce founder Rev. Mel White at the December 2 Vigil for Solidarity with LGBT Catholics.


Lavender interviewed Mary Lynn Murphy of Catholic Rainbow Parents and Michael J. Bayly of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), after the Vigil for Solidarity at the Cathedral of St. Paul on December 2 protesting the Archbishop’s statement.


Lavender: How disquieting is Archbishop Nienstadt’s statement?

Mary Lynn Murphy: Nienstedt is the first Archbishop to specify that those who “encourage” GLBT relationships are themselves mortal sinners prohibited from communion.

Archbishop Nienstedt denies the authenticity of all reputable modern science on the subject, instead [supporting] a pseudo scientific organization called the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) that explains homosexuality as a treatable, reversible disorder, with childhood trauma at its roots.


Lavender: What impact do you feel he will have on the GLBT, Catholic, and general communities?

Mary Lynn Murphy: If he is consistent with his record, the Archbishop’s impact will probably be more negative and divisive than any archbishop in the history of this archdiocese.

There is an enormous amount of fear among even slightly liberal lay and religious employees of the Archdiocese; parish employees; teachers in Catholic grade schools, high schools, and colleges; and anyone whose livelihood and pensions are vaguely associated with the archdiocese.

Any time the most prominent religious leader in the community is this aggressive and outspoken, it can’t help influencing everyone to some degree, and will undoubtedly give justification to conservatives, and license to homophobes and haters of all kinds.




Lavender: What recourse does a practicing Catholic who does not agree with church policies have?

Mary Lynn Murphy: In the past, [they] could gravitate to liberal parishes. But now, the right wing is lashing back. Their scouts attend liberal churches on Sundays, and tape-record the homilies and photograph the interior of the church and/or the actual Mass for evidence of “liturgical abuses.” These are then shared via the Internet to foment outrage among conservatives. They’re also forwarded to the Archbishop and even to the Papal Nuncio in [Washington, DC].

Michael Bayly: Perhaps the healthiest recourse for progressive Catholics is to seek out Catholic groups like Dignity Twin Cities and CPCSM. We need to focus on being proactive, on being the change we long to see in the church.


Lavender: Do you see his appointment as indicative of a trend in US Catholicism?

Michael Bayly: It’s actually a global trend. There’s been a rise in fundamentalism in all of the major religions. We’re living through difficult and frightening times, and, unfortunately, the response of some religious people is to retreat into a fantasy world of absolute certainty, and deny the need to evolve and change. Archbishop Nienstedt advocates fundamentalism, pure and simple. It’s not Biblical fundamentalism, but doctrinal fundamentalism.


Lavender: Would you tell us a bit about the demonstration?

Mary Lynn Murphy: Despite the bitter cold and literally painful wind, the vigil was a huge, rousing success! Large numbers of religious persons attended, as well as lay people and significant numbers of GLBT family members.

The speakers were Michael Bayly [Executive Coordinator of CPCSM]; Brian McNeill [Dignity Twin Cities]; my husband, Mike Murphy, and me [Catholic Rainbow Parents]; Ronnie Angelus [an 81-year-old parishioner of St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church]; and Mel White [nationally known founder of Soulforce].

We were banned from the Cathedral steps, so we got a permit to gather on Dayton Avenue next to the Cathedral. There were singing and drumming, and a very celebratory atmosphere. The most moving piece was a die-in and rising-up ritual that we conducted on the steps of the Cathedral, despite the ban. More than 100 people [of the 300+ in attendance] participated in this ritual. It was quiet, peaceful, and moving, lying there, staring up at the dissipating clouds and the day’s first glimpse of the sun.


____________________



Mary Lynn Murphy’s Statement
Read During the Vigil of Solidarity
– Cathedral of St. Paul, December 2, 2007


The Catholic Rainbow Parents are here today for two purposes:

First, to take issue with our new Archbishop about his nonpastoral and combative words regarding sexual orientation. His negative statements influence not only Catholics, but in one way or another, every citizen of Minnesota.

Secondly, to challenge the discriminatory Church teaching about homosexuality. Church teaching has been in error in the past . . . about the solar system, money-lending, its condemnation of democracy, its acceptance of slavery, its view of women as property, and others.

In light of our human experience, in accordance with all reputable modern science, and in the name of basic decency, we assert that homosexuality is not a disorder of any kind, but rather an ordinary human characteristic, with the exact moral dimensions of heterosexuality. This is not, we believe, and never was, a question of “sin.” It is a simple question of human diversity, and society’s ongoing struggle to learn to accept differences of all kinds.

Expressing sexuality and/or forming loving relationships is a basic human right. All of the condemnation by religious institutions cannot change that in a free and democratic society.

As parents, we lift up the voice of our parental authority on this matter, refusing to allow unloving, untrue messages (from any entity) to undermine our loving families, and the human dignity of GLBT persons everywhere—whether they are found in the pews, in the wider society, or, as they frequently are, in the ranks of the clergy and the hierarchy itself.

We hope the church will heed our message, and change its language and policy on this issue.




Images: Sophia Hantzes.

For more commentary and images of the Vigil for Solidarity, see the previous Wild Reed posts:
300+ People Vigil at the Cathedral in Solidarity with LGBT Catholics
Why We Gathered
Interesting Times Ahead
An Open Letter to Archbishop Nienstedt
NCR's Coverage of December 2 "Vigil for Solidarity"
Local Media Coverage of December 2 Vigil Falls Short
No, Really . . .