Monday, July 21, 2008

Remembering Alfred Kinsey's Legacy of Liberation


There’s a scene toward the end of the 2004 film Kinsey, Bill Condon’s biopic on renowned sexologist Alfred Kinsey, that for me is quite simply unforgettable.

Steven Winn of the San Francisco Chronicle describes this particular scene as follows:

Lynn Redgrave plays a woman who tells Kinsey his work freed her from guilt to love another woman. “You saved my life,” she says, her radiantly grateful face and brimming eyes filling the screen. She gets up and lays her hand on Kinsey’s in quiet communion.


And here is critic Christopher Kelly’s appraisal of this penultimate scene:

There’s a brief, beautiful sequence near the end, featuring Lynn Redgrave as another sort of late bloomer - an elderly woman who, after reading [Kinsey’s] “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,” finally comes to terms with the lesbian feelings she has tried to suppress for decades. The peerless Redgrave sends us out of the theater in tears of triumph, and she connects Kinsey’s science to a very human face. She shows us that, in preaching tolerance, open-mindedness and progressiveness, Alfred Kinsey was really saying this: You’re never too old to learn to love yourself.


I was reminded of Redgrave’s character’s gentle yet profound recollection of liberation when, in the July-August issue of The Gay and Lesbian Review, I read Ben Edward Akerley’s insightful and, at times, humorous “memo” marking the 60th anniversary of the publication of Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

Of this groundbreaking study, John Gagnon, Ph.D. has written:

It was with Kinsey’s first book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” . . . that knowledge about sexuality garnered from a scientific survey burst into the consciousness of the American public. This book and its companion, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,” published in 1953, introduced a new way of thinking and talking about sexuality to American (and world) culture.

The practice of sexuality was quite varied in the United States before the publication of these books, but it was largely unrecorded, at least by scientists. Before the late 1940s, the sexual lives of most people were shaped by personal experiments, isolated sexual encounters, uninformed gossip, media sensation, and moral condemnation (not necessarily in that order). The national myth was that most people were obedient to a traditional set of sexual rules and those who were not were relatively rare and defective in morals or willpower.

It was against this background of repression and prurience that Kinsey asserted the right of science to speak about sexual behavior. As a scientist, Kinsey spoke and wrote plainly, using language about sexuality that was rarely heard or read at the time. The facts reported in the book on men’s sexual behavior were at fundamental variance with the myths. Kinsey reported that the practice of masturbation was nearly universal among men (90 percent did it), that homosexual relations were widely experienced (37 percent had done it once), that premarital sexual relations were common (most college men did it), that half of married men had had extramarital sexual relations, and that oral sex was routine in deed if not in public discourse (70 percent of educated husbands said they and their wives had done it).

But it was not only these facts that evoked a powerful negative response from traditional figures in churches, legislatures, and the press. The book also had a strong reformist tone, with Kinsey arguing, completely in the American grain, that progress in dealing with sexual problems could only be made by objectively uncovering the facts of sexual life. That the reported sexual practices of American men differed from moral expectations was (in Kinsey’s interpretation) evidence of the power of sexuality and not a mark of moral decay. The problems associated with sexuality were a consequence of social repression, not inherent to sexuality itself.


As an American teenager growing into awareness of his attraction to other males, Ben Edward Akerley was deeply impacted by Kinsey’s 1948 study.

“I cannot begin to describe the overwhelming sense of relief my conscience experienced,” writes Akerley in his commentary in the Gay and Lesbian Review, “as I began to devour the new sex study, which I hoped would assuage my profound sense of shame and remorse.”

Following are more excerpts from Akerley’s piece, entitled “Coming Out Kinsey: Sexual Behavior at Sixty.”

______________________


Most intriguing of all in my all-absorbing search was Kinsey’s argument that nature loves a continuum and it is only the human mind that imposes categories and pigeonholes people into discrete groups. Sexual orientation, he proposed, could be observed to occupy a spectrum with a scale from zero to six, with zero being fully heterosexual and six being fully homosexual. This seven-point scale he offered as an alternative to the existing two-point, either-or dichotomy, though he emphasized that it was still a very imprecise and imperfect measure of the tremendously wide range of human sexual behavior and did not capture its fluidity over time.

The hardest thing my still immature brain had to wrestle with was the concept that it was a sliding scale, not a fixed one. I had immediately positioned myself as a six, never anticipating in my wildest dreams that just two years into the future, at age eighteen, I would fairly easily move away from that designation. A young woman who was determined to challenge my self-identity as a hundred percent homosexual managed to seduce me into a strictly one-time, experimental sexual tryst. Much to my dismay, it worked to the point of orgasm (or to use Kinsey’s preferred term, “release”), and I reluctantly acknowledged my transition to a Kinsey 5 (predominately homo and only incidentally heterosexual). Even though my sister insistently argues that a one-and only opposite sex encounter doesn’t qualify, I have unabashedly worn that badge of being certifiably bisexual ever since.

Thanks to Alfred Kinsey, I survived that period of adolescent angst and turmoil relatively unscathed and emerged fully from the stifling confines of that now-faraway closet. Only much later in life did I fully realize how far ahead of his time the indefatigable Kinsey was when he posed the question, Why are some gay people so completely comfortable with and adjusted to their orientation while others are desperately unhappy with it, seeking to keep it a secret or to pretend it’s not a fact of life, or even to change this orientation by any means possible?

. . . Like most readers who made Kinsey’s book an overnight best-seller, I anticipated a narrative with at least some salacious details, but encountered instead a myriad of tables, charts, and graphs that only a CPA might find exciting. But buried among all of that tabulated data were some major nuggets about human sexuality. Forty years after the publication of the first volume of his magnum opus, Kinsey is credited with having established the intellectual groundwork for what would become the gay and lesbian rights movement of the 1960’s and 70’s: the idea that homosexuality is a normal and recurring feature of the human condition.

– Excerpted from “Coming Out Kinsey: Sexual Behavior at Sixty” by Ben Edward Akerley (The Gay and Lesbian Review, July-August 2008).


NOTE: The following video shows the scene from Kinsey featuring Lynn Redgrave.




Recommended Off-site Links:
According to the Kinsey Reports - Jim Burroway (Box Turtle Bulletin, January 3, 2008).
Sexual Pioneer – A review of the film Kinsey by Joanne Laurier (World Socialist Web Site, December 15, 2004).

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
What Scientists in the UK are Saying About Homosexuality


Thursday, July 17, 2008

Beyond Courage



Last week the leadership of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) wrote to every deacon in the state of Minnesota, calling their attention to a serious moral and pastoral care issue presented by the Region 8 Deacon Conference, scheduled to take place this weekend at the University of St Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Specifically, we expressed concern that the only person scheduled to speak on the issues of homosexuality and ministry with homosexual persons and their families, is Fr. Paul Check, the Chief Executive Officer of the Courage apostolate.

We noted that, like the vast majority of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Catholics, their parents, loved ones, and allies, we have serious concerns about the ideology and message of the Courage movement. We then shared some of these concerns (along with alternative ways of thinking about and ministering to LGBT persons than those advocated by Courage) in a position paper comprised of “talking points” grouped under four headings: “Courage’s Mission and Philosophy,” “Courage and NARTH (National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality)”, “Alternative Catholic Perspectives on Homosexuality,” and “Church Teaching on Homosexuality.”

In the event that the deacons attend Fr. Check’s presentation at the upcoming deacons’ conference, we encouraged them to draw on these talking points to respectfully question and challenge the theological presuppositions and pastoral recommendations of Courage.

We concluded our letter by noting that:

It is our understanding that the diaconate ministry was developed, in large part, to provide pastoral outreach to persons on the margins of both the Church and society, and that this outreach places great emphasis on listening to where people are at on their journey rather than on preaching of doctrine. There is a place for, and value in, helping people discern where and how God is present and active in their lives – including LGBT lives. The Church itself can and has benefited from such discernment. The Vatican II document “Dei Verbum” says that the Catholic tradition develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit, and that this development of tradition occurs “through the intimate understanding of spiritual things [that believers] experience.” In this way, “Dei Verbum” states, the Church “constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth.”

This foundational teaching of Vatican II clearly teaches that the Church is still developing and growing. It’s a teaching that also refutes the idea that to be a good Catholic means, first of all, unquestioning obedience to those who have placed themselves over us and who declare that they possess truths that others do not.

Yet sadly, such an absolutist approach is exactly what the Courage apostolate advocates. From our perspective, and perhaps yours too, such an approach fails to embody those diaconate traditions and charisms of listening and openness to God in the lives and relationships of all.

We hope you will use the enclosed position paper as a resource, not only when engaging Fr. Check at the Region 8 Deacon Conference, but also in your future interactions with people in your life and ministry as deacons. A PDF version of this position paper is also available on the CPCSM website for downloading and distribution. We are also including with this letter a Catholic bibliography on gay issues – a list of books and DVDs that we hope you will find of value in your ministry with and for LGBT persons and their families.


Following is the position paper that was mailed to the deacons of Minnesota by CPCSM. (NOTE: The links within the text have been added.)

_____________________


Beyond Courage to Authenticity

A Position Paper on the Courage Apostolate
prepared by the
Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities



1. Courage’s Mission and Philosophy

The Courage apostolate purports to help people move beyond “same-sex attraction” by encouraging a life of “interior chastity in union with Christ.” The movement labels itself a “pro-chastity ministry” and equates chastity with celibacy.

Although Courage acknowledges that the “inclination” of “homosexual attractions” is “psychologically understandable,” such attractions are nevertheless considered “objectively disordered” – a view that, though promulgated by the Vatican as church teaching, is widely questioned throughout the Church as the people of God.

Courage insists that it “does not provide professional therapy” while, at the same time, maintaining the discredited belief that “some people, especially young people, are able to further their psychosexual development [i.e., “move beyond homosexual attractions”] with spiritual and psychological aid.”

Courage shares with Protestant ex-gay/transformational ministries the belief that homosexuality is pathological, and not a natural, normal sexual orientation. However, unlike many of the other ministries, the Courage apostolate recognizes that adult sexual orientation is fixed and does not claim that adult gays and lesbians’ sexual orientation can be changed. Nevertheless, it still teaches that the only valid path for homosexuals is to seek celibacy.


2. Courage and NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality)

Courage discourages the use of the terms “gay” and “lesbian,” believing such labels reduce individuals to their “sexual attractions.” Given this rationale, it seems odd that Courage uses the term “same-sex attracted” when talking about the homosexual orientation. It’s important to know that the phrase “same-sex attracted” was coined by the largely discredited U.S.-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). It’s a term that is unrecognized by any professional health association. Following NARTH’s lead, Courage likens homosexuality to alcoholism, and conducts its “support group” using the 12-Step format developed by Alcoholics Anonymous. Some members of Courage even consider their “disorder” to be curable, and explain its origin using debunked psychoanalytic theories of dominant mothers, distant fathers, and abusive family relations.

NARTH, itself, is a sham organization of “therapists” that teaches that homosexuality is a disorder that is not only chosen, but can be changed through effort. Not surprisingly, NARTH’s findings and methodology are seldom, if ever, offered to peer-reviewed journals for critical analysis. In short, the group lacks any respect from the wider scientific community.

Despite this, the founder of Courage, Fr, John Harvey, frequently invited to his workshops, as a major presenter, the late Peter Rudegeair, a member of NARTH and a clinical psychologist who was a major proponent of discredited (by all mainstream medical and mental health professional associations) theories advocating reparative, or change, therapy for gay men and lesbians.

Since last November the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis has attempted to promote NARTH as a credible scientific organization. For instance, in the November 8 issue of The Catholic Spirit, the official newspaper of the archdiocese, Fr. Jim Livingston (lead chaplain to the local chapter of Courage) endorsed NARTH by citing the organization as a useful resource and by encouraging people to visit its website so as “to learn . . . about the emotional root causes of homosexuality.” Fr. Livingston also recommended an audio CD of a talk given by NARTH co-founder Joseph Nicolosi, an individual whom Archbishop Nienstedt, when he was a bishop in Detroit, invited to speak to the priests of the archdiocese as an “expert” on homosexuality. Many Catholics are concerned by the archdiocese’s increasing reliance on the discredited perspective and “findings” of NARTH to support and validate Church teaching on homosexuality.

Although Courage itself does not attempt to change adult homosexual orientation, its website has a link to NARTH’s website and to the websites of many non-Catholic so-called “ex-gay”conservative religious groups—such as, Exodus International, Homosexuals Anonymous, Hope Ministry, International Healing Foundation, JONAH, People Can Change, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), and Straightway. Furthermore, Courage is yet to refute the pseudo-science of reparative therapy these “ex-gay” groups advocate. From the perspective of all mainstream medical and mental health professional associations, homosexuality is not a disorder requiring either curing or repairing. Furthermore, many of these professional associations even hold that to attempt such “cures” is unethical and verges on malpractice.

Yet Courage does not dissuade its members from pursuing such “therapy,” and links to NARTH’s and other ex-gay groups’ websites from its own website. We consider this to be not only unethical, but morally reprehensible. Courage is basically saying to its members that the unhealthy and damaging practice of reparative therapy is okay, but, under no circumstances are its members to consider pursuing and maintaining a loving committed same-sex relationship – relationships which, as a number of recent and reputable studies have shown, are “not atypical, psychologically immature, or malevolent contexts of development.” (Glenn I. Roisman, PhD, American Psychological Association media release, January 22, 2008.)


3. Alternative Catholic perspectives on homosexuality

CPCSM has always supported those who feel called by God to live a celibate life. Yet we have serious concerns when Courage and the hierarchical Church insist that all gay and lesbian people are called to lifelong celibacy as a result of their God-given sexual orientation. We believe that this reflects an extremely limited and ultimately unhealthy understanding of human sexuality and of God’s presence and call in the lives and relationships of LGBT people.

With the vast majority of LGBT Catholics, their parents, loved ones, and allies we recognize and celebrate human sexuality – gay and straight – as a God-given gift that we are called to holistically integrate into our lives. For the majority of people – gay or straight – such wholeness and authenticity means seeking and cultivating an intimate relationship with another – a relationship which by its love and commitment is pure in thought and conduct, i.e., chaste. Being authentic in this way – as many LGBT people will attest – requires great dedication and courage.

LGBT people, along with heterosexual people, can and do experience sexual relationships marked by justice, wholeness, and life-giving love. We believe that such experiences, along with current scientific understanding of homosexuality, can and should inform church teaching on human sexuality.

Recent data (2007) published by the Pew Forum in its study of Religion in America show that a majority of U.S. Catholics (58 percent) currently favor acceptance of gay people and relationships and that such approval is proportionately greater in the Catholic Church than in other Christian churches or in the nation as a whole. It would seem that many Catholics concur with National Catholic Reporter editor, Tom Roberts, when he states: “[Some insist] that current thinking that is tolerant of homosexuality [is] ignoring ancient wisdom. I happen to think that current wisdom that welcomes homosexuals is, more correctly, finally dropping centuries of ancient ignorance.” (NCR, January 2006.)

The editors of the 1994 anthology, Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources of Theological Reflection, suggest that this ignorance stems, in part, from the fact that “throughout most of Christian history the vast majority of theologians who wrote about sexuality tried to approach the subject from one direction only: they began with affirmations and assertions of the faith (from scriptures, from doctrines, from churchly teachings, and so on) and then applied those to human sexuality. Now, theologians are assuming that the other direction of inquiry is important as well: What does our sexual experience reveal about God? About the ways we understand the Gospel? About the ways we read scripture and tradition and attempt to live out the faith?”

Such questions, we admit, can be unsettling. But we think that it is not the Catholic way to shy away from them and to retreat instead into some fantasy world where, despite both scientific and experiential evidence to the contrary, we insist that we have all the possible answers (and thus knowledge) available to us about what it means to be sexual, what it means to be human.


4. Church teaching on homosexuality

In his November 1 column in The Catholic Spirit, editor Joe Towalski notes that homosexuality is a “hot button issue for the church,” yet he does not say why this is the case. We’d like to suggest that one reason why many issues related to human sexuality remain controversial is because the majority of Catholics intuitively sense that the teachings of the church about these issues lack credibility. The reason for this is simple: the laity has had no part in shaping these teachings.

The belief that the laity should be consulted in matters of doctrine, especially when teachings concern their lives intimately, is part of Catholicism’s rich heritage. For instance, the great English theologian, Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-90) wrote that: “The body of the faithful is one of the witnesses to the fact of the tradition of revealed doctrine, and . . . their consensus through Christendom is the voice of the Infallible Church.”

With regards to the issue of homosexuality, the “body of the faithful” is still very much engaged in the journey towards “consensus.” (As noted above, recent data published by the Pew Forum shows that 58 percent of U.S. Catholics favor acceptance of gay people and relationships.) And in other areas, what can reasonably be viewed as consensus is actually at odds with the teaching of the hierarchical church. For instance, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops concedes that 96 percent of married Catholics use birth control. Clearly, the church’s teachings on a range of sexual issues are not set in stone. This shouldn’t be surprising, for as Jesuit Philip Endean reminds us: “Dogmas of tradition exist not as truths complete in themselves, but rather as resources for helping us discover the ever greater glory . . . of the God whose gift of self pervades all possible experience.” And “all possible experience” includes gay people’s experiences of love, intimacy, and relationship.

All of this should serve to remind us that truth is discovered through time and that tradition evolves. The Church is currently teaching in Section 2358 of the Catechism, that homosexuals should be treated with compassion and sensitivity. That, in itself, represents an evolution of the tradition. There is no reason why the moral teaching should not evolve beyond the “intrinsic disorder” of “homosexual acts,” and there is plenty of scientific evidence and moral/pastoral reasoning that it should evolve quickly.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Real Meaning of Courage
The Many Form of Courage (Part 1)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part 2)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part 3)
The Dreaded “Same-Sex Attracted” View of Catholicism
When “Guidelines” Lack Guidance
Be Not Afraid: You Can Be Happy and Gay
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
Sons of the Church: The Witnessing of Gay Catholic Men - A Discussion Guide
Debunking NARTH (Part I)
Debunking NARTH (Part 2)
“Conversion Therapy” and the Pseudo-Science of NARTH
Former “Ex-Gay” Shares His Experience of NARTH
Far from “Innocuous”
When Quackery Goes Mainstream
No Place for Dialogue in Archdiocesan Newspaper
Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory
What Scientists in the UK are Saying About Homosexuality
A Catholic Bibliography on LGBT Issues


Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Robert McClory's Latest Book Honored by Catholic Press Association

Regular readers of The Wild Reed would know that earlier this year I worked with a number of other local Catholics to bring author and journalist, Robert McClory (pictured at right) to the Twin Cities for the May 3 Second Annual Prayer Breakfast for Hope and Justice.

As keynote speaker at this event, McClory spoke on the place and role of faithful dissent in the Roman Catholic Church, and shared insights gained from the research and writing of his latest book, As It Was In the Beginning: The Coming Democratization of the Catholic Church.

Recently, the Catholic Press Association awarded McClory’s As It Was In the Beginning First Place in its History category. Congratulations, Bob!

So, what’s McClory’s award-winning book all about? Well, local historian and theologian, Terry Dosh, writes:

As the title [of McClory’s book] indicates, democratic, lay participation is a deeply valued and practiced tradition of the early church, and such a tradition is a true basis for reform in tomorrow’s church. McClory persuasively argues that the time to begin the future church is now.

Of the early church’s democratic foundation, eminent medieval historian, Brian Tierney, notes:

Early Christian texts are filled with a sense of community meetings, community sharing, community participation in decisions, and above all they reflect a strong belief that the consensus of the Christian people indicates the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the church . . . Whatever power prelates possessed in the early church, they possessed it on behalf of their communities and as representing their communities.

The first six chapters of McClory’s book promote this argument and support it with historical evidence from the early church up to the mid-20th century. The next six chapters focus on the present and the role that the principles of democracy have for the church today.

For as Tierney reminds us:

The modern practices of representation and consent that characterize secular constitutional government are not alien to the tradition of the church. And if in the future the church should choose to adopt such practices to meet its own needs in a changing world, that would not be a revolutionary departure but a recovery of a lost part of the church’s own early tradition.

McClory’s award-winning book encourages and validates such recovery efforts. Summing up his conviction that the present moment augers well for the future, McClory writes:

The ongoing nature of [the current] crisis [in the Catholic Church] is so severe and so debilitating that it will eventually compel major structural changes in the church’s operational system.

The final chapter of As It Was In the Beginning explores what such structural changes might look like.

If you haven’t already read Robert McClory’s As It Was In the Beginning: The Coming Democratization of the Catholic Church, then I wholeheartedly urge you to do so. As author David Gibson says: “This book is a model for the kind of debate the church needs, but too often avoids.”

NOTE: To read two reviews of As It Was In the Beginning: The Coming Democratization of the Catholic Church, see the previous Wild Reed post, Robert McClory’s Prophetic Work.

For my April 2008 interview with Robert McClory, click here.


A Selection of Other First Place Winners in the
2008 Catholic Press Association Awards

Theology: The Quest for the Living God by Elizabeth Johnson.
Spirituality (Hard Cover): Welcome to the Wisdom of the World by Joan Chittister.
Spirituality (Soft Cover): Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu Explained: A Spirituality for the 21st Century by Louis M. Savary.
Popular Presentation of the Catholic Faith: A Jesuit Off Broadway by James Martin, SJ.
Scripture: Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels by Pheme Perkins.
Liturgy: A Commentary on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal by Ed Foley.
Reference Book: An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies by Orlando O. Espin and James B. Nickoloff.
Gender Issues: Green Sisters: A Spiritual Ecology by Sarah McFarland Taylor.
Family Life: Jesus in the House: Gospel Reflections on Christ's Presence in the Home by Allan F. Wright.
Children’s Book: He Said Yes: The Story of Fr. Mychal Judge by Kelley Ann Lynch.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
A Catholic Understanding of Faithful Dissent (Part 1)
A Catholic Understanding of Faithful Dissent (Part 2)
Here Comes Everybody!
(featuring an April 2008 interview with Robert McClory).
Ghostwriting for the Pope
(a commentary by Robert McClory).
The Second Annual Prayer Breakfast for Hope and Justice


Photo of Robert McClory: Michael J. Bayly.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Thoughts on Relativism

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt writes a column in The Catholic Spirit entitled, “In God’s Good Time.” Each month the editorial team of The Progressive Catholic Voice online journal take his public statements as an opportunity to discuss his views with him and our readers.

Following is our July 2008 installment of “Dialoguing with the Bishop.”

___________________


Dear Archbishop Nienstedt:

We have noticed that you and Pope Benedict XVI frequently caution us against the evils of relativism and individualism which, you say, are disastrously characteristic of US culture. Would you please tell us what you mean?

Of course, relativism and individualism can be carried to extremes, as can their opposites, absolutism and communalism. Maybe by adding an “-ism” you mean to lump these notions with other extreme ideas. If we were extreme cognitive relativists, we would accept anything anyone said as true for them. Or if it is moral relativism you are talking about, at the extreme we would accept everyone’s judgment of their own behavior as morally good. There is surely enough contention about right and wrong, true and false, among US citizens to allay the fear of too much tolerance of each other's beliefs or actions.

As for the extreme of individualism, that would mean we see ourselves as entirely independent and self-sufficient. All we need to disabuse ourselves of that idea is for an electrical grid to go down or the price of gas to inch higher. We are probably more dependent on our various communal systems than the people of many other nations of the world. There aren’t many Thoreaus carving out independent existences in the wilderness.

If you are not talking about the extremes, perhaps you are talking about an emphasis on one pole of the duality rather than an emphasis on the other pole. In the US, we might emphasize individual liberty while the Vatican emphasizes communal unity. In the US, we stand on principle for freedom of thought and speech as well as for having good reasons to restrict people’s liberty. At the other pole, the Vatican emphasizes conformity in thought and speech and uniformity in action. You could be warning us not to let the emphasis in the US go to extremes. We could respectfully return the warning.

Both questions, how humans know truth and how societies should be organized, are philosophical questions with at least twenty-five centuries of debate on record. We are not competent to survey the fields, but we are pretty sure that we humans haven’t arrived at absolute truth about either question to date.

You may not be talking about the philosophical notions of relativism or individualism at all. Rather, in cautioning against them, you are conveying this positive pastoral message to us:

Do not worry about how to live. You can be certain that in following the Roman Catholic hierarchy you are on the path of truth and goodness. Jesus has said that His Spirit is with us in our institutionalized tradition so that we will not err in doctrine or in moral teaching. Adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catechism and commit fully to life in a Roman Catholic parish. Be so committed to and immersed in a Catholic way of thinking that you subordinate your individuality to the community. In this way you will model the Christian gospel of love and evangelize the world you interact with. This is the way of holiness.”

Do we get the message that you want to convey?

This vision has an appeal, and we believe you are trying to protect and lead us. We also believe with you that individuals, families, and whole communities can live happy, holy lives believing that the Spirit guides them through the Roman Catholic institution. For many people, that lifestyle may appear to be the only way to live a holy life. In the maelstrom of cultural, ideological, political, and religious differences in our own nation, let alone in the whole world, it is not easy for an individual to know the truth and to choose the good at each step of the path. Conforming one’s judgment of truth and goodness to the judgment of the Church leaders seems a secure choice.

But for many of us, another way of being holy, Christian, Catholics in the world at large is also possible. It is both individualistic and communal, and it recognizes that our knowledge is relative to our time in history.

In this vision, the individual cannot abdicate the responsibility to make judgments for himself or herself. This responsibility goes with the inalienable freedom of spirit rooted in the Gospel message.

But we do not believe we stand alone as individuals. We have multiple communities within which to test our thinking and judging. We have our primary relationships, family and friends, to develop a sound self and draw us out of our egotism. We have in our Roman Catholic tradition, a Eucharistic community to keep the memory of who we are as Christians alive among us. It is not just the parish we belong to, and not just the current bishop and pope, but the whole community of believers from the early Church onward. Our thinking and judging is guided by that tradition.

We learn from the Christian churches that do not report to Rome as well as from the other religions of the world. We have our own secular liberal democratic tradition to learn from with its core values of liberty and equality. We have neighbors who have been formed in other cultures. In this age of global communication, when people can Google any question to thinkers ancient and contemporary, we are connected to deep and broad communities of inquiry.

Since each of us has been formed differently by our interactions with all these traditions, wherever two or three of us are gathered we are a community of individuals with a rich experience who can help each other develop in all our human dimensions. Our faith is that we are as individuals empowered by the Holy Spirit to live in communication with the world as co-creators of the Kingdom of God.

We have no empirical evidence, but we suspect that most contemporary US Catholics form their convictions and make their moral judgments in reliance on what they have learned from broader communities than just the Catholic Church. Can we be sure that we have absolute truth? No. Depending on how much responsibility we take for inquiring, we can only get as close as humans have currently come to it. It is relative truth, relative to our time, our cultural programming, and our finite minds.

The formation of our consciences in this multiplicity of communities leads us to question some truths held by the Roman Catholic Church. We think this is an advantage for the growth of the institution. An inbred conformity does not lead to growth and renewal. This judgment may be presumptuous of us, but in reading your column in the June 19th issue of The Catholic Spirit about going to Rome to receive the pallium, we think we see into the mind of a man whose interior life has been formed entirely by his life in the Church and its culture. We have no doubt that you are a conscientious, kind, and holy man. Because your lifestyle of immersion in Catholic culture has worked for you, you may think it is the best way for all Catholics.

We ask you, as the archdiocesan leader, to recognize other cultural ways of being Catholic. We and others like us whose interior lives have been formed through interactions with the pluralism of the US culture in the twenty-first century have the same goal of holiness as you.

The pallium symbolizes unity, you say. From our point of view, unless unity is actually experienced among members of the Archdiocese, no piece of cloth can symbolize it. To accept your leadership and work together, we need your acknowledgment that our progressive Catholicism is a benefit to the Church. It would serve our Church’s mission as a sacrament of true unity in Christ to respect each other and work together.

Sincerely,

The Editorial Team of The Progressive Catholic Voice


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory
No Place for Dialogue in Archdiocesan Newspaper
When Quackery Goes Mainstream
Interesting Times Ahead
Monitoring Nienstedt
An Open Letter to Archbishop Nienstedt
Nienstedt’s “Trauma of His Own”
300+ People Vigil at the Cathedral in Solidarity with LGBT Catholics
Why We Gathered
NCR’s Coverage of December 2 “Vigil for Solidarity”
Local Media Coverage of December 2 Vigil Falls Short
Far from Innocuous
My Advent Prayer for the Church
The Talk of the Archdiocese
Thoughts on Archbishop Nienstedt


Sunday, July 13, 2008

Summer Blooms


I’ve spent much of the weekend working in the garden - planting, weeding, watering. I’ve enjoyed it immensely.

And, as you can see from the accompanying photos, such enjoyment is not at all surprising given the exquisite beauty that surrounds us at this time of year.








Images: Michael J. Bayly.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
“Jubilation is My Name”: Spring in Minnesota
A Springtime Visitor
Spring in Minnesota (2007)
A Snowy December

Travails of a Bishop and a Pope

Here’s some interesting news items from England and Australia . . .

First, from England, where Gene Robinson (pictured at right), the first openly gay U.S. Episcopal bishop, has been barred from the Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade Anglican meeting, so that he cannot become a focus of the global event. Yet as Rachel Zoll writes for the Associated Press, “Anglicans on all sides of the issue agree: The strategy has backfired.”

Zoll goes on to note that:

New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson has been embraced by sympathetic Anglicans in England and Scotland who view his exclusion as an affront to their Christian beliefs.

Robinson plans several appearances on the outskirts of the Lambeth Conference to be what he called a “constant and friendly” reminder of gays in the church.

“I’m just not willing to let the bishops meet and pretend that we don’t exist,” Robinson said in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press before preaching at St. Mary’s Church Putney. “They’ve taken vows to serve all the people in dioceses, not just certain ones.”

The Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, did not include Robinson and a few other bishops in the conference as he tried to prevent a split in the world Anglican Communion.

The 77 million-member fellowship — the third-largest in the world behind Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians — has been on the brink of schism since Robinson was consecrated in 2003. The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the U.S.

Robinson and Episcopal leaders had tried for years to negotiate a role for the New Hampshire bishop at Lambeth, but were unsuccessful. He resolved to come to England anyway.

“I’m not storming the pulpit to wrestle the microphone from the archbishop,” Robinson said. “My agenda is this: What does the church’s treatment of gay and lesbian people say about God? You’ve got all these people talking about gays and lesbians being an abomination before God. Does that make you want to run out and go to an Anglican church and sing God’s praises?”

Robinson preached Sunday at the 16th-century parish on the Thames River, despite a request from Williams that he not do so. A protester briefly interrupted the sermon, waving a motorcycle helmet and yelling “Repent!” and “Heretic!” before he was escorted out.

An emotional Robinson resumed preaching, asking parishioners to “pray for that man” and urging them repeatedly not to fear change in the church.

On Monday night, Robinson will join Sir Ian McKellan at a London literary festival for the British premiere of For the Bible Tells Me So, a documentary about gay Christians that features Robinson.

Next Sunday, after the Lambeth Conference holds its opening worship in Canterbury Cathedral, Robinson will join Anglican gays and lesbians in a separate service nearby. He will then sit in the public exhibition hall near the assembly sessions to be available for conversation.

A group of Episcopal bishops have organized two private receptions where Anglicans from other parts of the world can meet him. When the conference ends Aug. 3, he heads to Scotland where he has been invited to preach at Anglican parishes.

Robinson was a target of death threats at his consecration and wore a bulletproof vest throughout the ceremony. He said the threats resumed a few months ago when he published a book about his religious views. He has arranged personal security in England, but said he could not disclose details. Donors are covering the cost for the extra protection, he said. His partner of two decades, Mark Andrew, is traveling with him but declined to be interviewed.

Meanwhile, in my home country of Australia, there’s been a “security scare” just hours after Pope Benedict XVI’s arrival for World Youth Day.

Writing in the July 14 issue of The Sydney Morning Herald, Daniel Emerson notes that:

The security contingent protecting Pope Benedict XVI during his Australian visit suffered a scare just hours after the Pontiff’s arrival yesterday when a police officer apparently mishandled a weapon and injured himself.

Police say the male officer, attached to the tactical operations unit, was performing World Youth Day protection duties at the Pope’s Kenthurst retreat when he was injured “by an item of his personal operational equipment” about 9.20pm.

“The officer was taken to Westmead Hospital where he was treated for a laceration and fracture to one of his fingers,” a police spokesman said.

The Pope’s motorcade, which included three ambulances, was last night given a police escort to the Opus Dei Kenthurst Study Centre retreat where he will stay for the next three days after arriving in Sydney yesterday.

Meanwhile, abuse survivor groups in Australia say they will wait for action from the Australian Catholic Church before judging the sincerity of any apology from the Pope on clerical sex abuse.

Writes Sydney Morning Herald’s correspondent, Linda Morris:

The victims’ support group Broken Rites said yesterday any apology would be meaningless until the church took constructive steps to redress the overly legalistic way it dealt with complaints. It called for the removal of statutes of limitations and a new approach in the courts where the church's first priority is not property protection but justice.

As the legal system stood, it was easier to sue James Hardie for asbestos-related claims than to sue the Catholic Church, the group said yesterday. The president of Broken Rites, Chris McIsaac, said victims were owed an apology from the Australian Catholic Church and a personal apology from the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, who this week ordered the appointment of an independent church panel to investigate complaints about his handling of a sex abuse complaint in 2003.

But ultimately they wanted more than an apology, she said. “These people have been abused by priests and brothers and then they have been re-abused by church authorities. We would want to see dialogue and proposals to help victims; we would see that as an act of co-operation that would bring justice to victims.”

In other related news, Australia TV personality, Ray Martin, chosen by Cardinal George Pell to front the official World Youth Day television coverage, has added his voice to the growing criticism of the special powers given to police to restrict public protests. Says Martin: “I think the police, the Government has been heavy-handed about this. I don’t think it’s necessary.” Despite his criticism, Martin doesn’t believe that the controversial “special powers” were sought by the organizers of World Youth Day.


UPDATES:
Cardinal George Pell Charged
with Multiple Sexual Offences

– Melissa Davey
The Guardian
June 28, 2017

Cardinal George Pell
Found Guilty of Child Sex Abuse

– Adam Cooper
The Sydney Morning Herald
February 26, 2017

Cardinal George Pell Released From Jail
After High Court Quashes
Child Sexual Abuse Conviction

– Melissa Davies
The Guardian
April 7, 2020

Why Have Media Outlets Been Fined
More Than $1 Million for Their Pell Reporting?

– Rick Sarre
The Conversation
June 4, 2021

Cardinal George Pell
Dies in Rome Aged 81

ABC News
January 10, 2023


Recommended Off-site Links:
Pope Lands in Sydney
– Paola Totaro (Sydney Morning Herald, July 13, 2008).
“My Innocent Error” – Pell’s Abuse Defence
- Joel Gibson, Erik Jensen and Arjun Ramachandra (Sydney Morning Herald, July 9, 2008).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
When Unity Trumps Truth
Episcopal Fundamentalists Take Their Toys and Run
The Pope’s U.S. Visit: A Lost Opportunity and Much Unfinished Work
Why We Cannot Cheer the Pope
Chris McGillion Responds to the "Exacerbating" Actions of Cardinal Pell
The Two-Sided Catholic Crisis

Image 1: Gene Robinson the openly gay Anglican Bishop from Concord New Hampshire, robes up, at St. Mary's Church in Putney, London, Sunday July 13, 2008. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Image 2: Pope Benedict XVI arrives at Richmond Airbase and is greeted by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and NSW Premier Morris Iemma. (Photo: Bob Pearce)


Friday, July 11, 2008

Revisiting Our Catholic "Stonewall Moment"

My recent sharing of information about the Ecumenical Catholic Church (A New Expression of Catholicism, 7/9/08) elicited a number (and range) of responses, many of which reminded me of aspects of a February 2006 presentation by theologian Mary E. Hunt (pictured at right).

CPCSM had invited Hunt to the Twin Cities for the three-part symposium, “Exploring Contemporary Issues Within the Catholic Church.” Her February 17, 2006, presentation was entitled, “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: An Ecclesia for Our Children and Ourselves,” and envisioned the kind of church “we want to pass on to our children in light of the current institutional scandals, the increasing pluralistic religious setting in which we live, and the demands of justice in the midst of war, ecocide, and greed.” To guide her analysis and visioning, Hunt relied on the traditional “marks of the church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.”

In the previous Wild Reed post, Our Catholic “Stonewall Moment”, I shared the bulk of the transcript of Hunt’s talk. Today, I offer those excerpts from this same talk that I think are relevant to the recent discussion concerning the Ecumenical Catholic Church and thus the marks of Catholicism.

_____________________________________


[The] struggle between those who want an open and participatory church which would be quite diverse and those, including Pope Benedict XVI and other conservatives, who believe that a smaller, more homogeneous church would be better—what I have come to think of the leaner/meaner style—is a struggle that forms the context or the backdrop for most of our contemporary experience of church.

. . . I call this our Stonewall moment. The Stonewall was a gay bar in New York where, in 1969, patrons resisted arrest during one of the police’s regular gay-bashing raids. Rather than acquiesce to the harassment that kept up a “neurotic minuet” (a wonderful phrase from the theologian John Frye) between police and bar patrons, courageous lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people stood up, spoke out, and resisted. They probably surprised even themselves at the power of their own righteous indignation.

I believe that Catholics should respond to the latest Vatican bullying of seminarians the same way. After decades of the Vatican implementing a system that takes authority away from local communities and presumes to impose its will on Catholics who can think for themselves, it is time for Catholics to stand up, speak out, and resist not simply on issues of sexuality and reproduction, but on war, ecology, race, poverty, and the many justice concerns about which the [Vatican] has little credibility left to speak.

Evidence suggests that American Catholics do not support many of the narrow-minded tenets of our church. In opposition to the male hierarchy’s belief that ordaining women priests is theological treason, more than 60 percent of American Catholics say they would support women in the priesthood, according to the most recent Zogby/LeMoyne poll. Another poll, conducted by the Boston Globe in the Boston Archdiocese—where the incidences of sexual abuse by priests were among the worst—finds that nearly 60 percent of Catholics oppose a ban on gay priests. Combine this with American Catholics’ clear disregard for the church’s medieval views on marriage, divorce, and birth control, and increasing numbers of Catholics who think abortion is morally acceptable under certain circumstances. Then it becomes obvious that we find ourselves in a church that does not speak to our everyday concerns in any meaningful way, much less exert any effective leadership on issues of war, racism, economic injustice, or ecological destruction.

The Vatican, in its patriarchal echo chamber, continues to portray Western values of tolerance and equality as the fallen morality of a secular society. In so doing, the institutional church treats millions of faithful Catholics in America not as spiritual adults, but as perpetual adolescents in need of guidance from on high. The time has come for American Catholics to claim our full baptismal citizenship and publicly call for changes in church policies on sexuality, ordination, relationships, and ministry. Considering the enormous economic and political influence of the American church, if Catholics here really stood up to their bishops, loudly and in numbers, the Vatican would have little choice but to listen.

There is increasing evidence that despite the dissembling of the hierarchy, American Catholics are refusing to let the institution scapegoat gay priests, feminism, and modernity for the Vatican’s outmoded theology. For example, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the leaders of the U.S. men’s religious orders, announced plans to send a delegation to Rome to oppose the anti-gay policy. In a welcome response to an inflexible Vatican regime, the superior of the New York Province of the Jesuits, Fr. Gerald J. Chojnacki, wrote: “We know that gay men…have served the church well as priests—and so why would we be asked to discriminate based on orientation alone against those whom God has called and invited?” This is a question that could be asked about women and married men as well.

The Stonewall moment we face is not simply on the matter of sexuality. Rather, sexuality in all its grace opens the community to some new choices. The alternative is to struggle endlessly over the wrong issues—homosexuality rather than heterosexism, ordination of women rather than new models of ministry, power rather than cooperation.

Other religious groups have come to this kind of juncture where seemingly irreconcilable differences prevail. Protestants have a long and proud history of forming new denominations, and we can learn from them. Jews have figured out how to group themselves according to beliefs and practices that unite them as Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist and to still all be Jews. We can learn from them as well.

Catholics, on the other hand, strive to keep ourselves in one organization, a goal that may prove to be beyond our ability this time. Of course we have the Old Catholic Church, and the American Catholic Church, and several other groups [such as the Ecumenical Catholic Church] that signal their connection to the Catholic community without wanting to affirm their Roman ties. I understand their reasoning. But I think the power of the Vatican—its financial resources, its communications advantage, and its symbolic capital—is touched very lightly by such groups it brushes off as apostate or otherwise trivial.

I suggest there is a need for structural change that implies “claiming the center” as feminist theorist bell hooks described the task of those who are marginalized. The move from margin to center does not mean replacing one pope with another, one curia with another. Rather, it involves rethinking the center so that the many people who are now on the margins are taken more seriously as the whole configuration of church changes from a top-down to a horizontal model of interlocking communities. Pie in the sky, you may think, but let us explore this possibility, imagine and revel in the energy such changes would unleash before we capitulate to the current forces.

[At the same time] I think there is a value in maintaining ties to our tradition, indeed, claiming that who we are and what we believe is central to the community’s life and well being. This is what Catholic feminist theologians have done; rather than leave the church we claim ourselves church. . . . I find it difficult and uncharted to do so, but I think spiritual integrity requires we do what we can. Otherwise I would opt for the Protestant approach which I respect, or the Jewish model which seems to work nicely for them. As a Catholic I want to keep trying without sacrificing my own integrity.

I may come to see the error of my ways, but for now I suggest we rely on the traditional marks of the church, that it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic as we outline some parameters of a church we want to share with our children today as well as when they are celebrating in memory of us.


Hunt then proceeded to outline these “parameters of a church we want to share with our children” by discussing each of the four traditional marks of the church. To read more, click here.


See also the previous Wild Reed post:
Crisis? What Crisis?

Image: Michael J. Bayly.

Donald Hanway's "Fresh Look at a Sensitive Topic"

My friend, James, recently loaned me a very interesting and insightful book by Donald G. Hanway, entitled: A Theology of Gay and Lesbian Inclusion: Love Letters to the Church.

Publishers Weekly notes that:

Hanway, a retired Episcopal priest, wants to equip Christians to advocate on behalf of gays and lesbians, and to speak with love and respect to those who disagree. He writes as a pastor, offering 10 open letters to the church in defense of homosexuals, often using their own words and descriptions of the prejudice they have encountered. These faithful homosexual Christians, Hanway says, did not choose their orientation, but have dealt patiently and faithfully with the difficulties of being misunderstood. Hanway also discusses the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, emphasizing that the Gospel is indeed ‘good news’ for all people. The book is strongest when Hanway is sharing the personal stories of gay people who discuss their faith and their hopes for the future.

I’ve added Hanway’s book to The Wild Reed’s Catholic Bibliography on LGBT Issues, and would like to share in this post excerpts from “Letter 5” – “Humans as Sexual Beings: A Fresh Look at a Sensitive Topic.”

____________________________________________

Sexuality is part of who we are; it is not just a matter of what we do. Some pious Christians would prefer to compartmentalize sex, just as some would prefer to compartmentalize religion – that is, make it one part of their lives separate from the rest of their lives. However, that is not how religious faith works, and that is not how sexuality works. We bring our sexual identity and feelings with us every place we go – not blatantly, perhaps, but as an influential part of ourselves, always present whether we recognize it or not.

One view of sex is that it is a necessary evil, and that God doesn’t want us to think about it except at very specific and necessary times. Let me ask you this: Who do you think invented sex? More important, why was sex invented? Was it only for the perpetuation of the species, or might sex have other purposes as well? Might it not be another part of the rich banquet of creation that we are to celebrate and manage wisely . . .

It is quite true that sex may become a false god, just as money and other forms of power easily usurp God. It is also quite true that sex can become an addiction, as television and gambling and alcohol and food and dieting and anger and shopping and work can become addictions. Part of what makes sex so tempting, though, is the way we have made it highly visible yet unmentionable.

Many people take the view that if we don’t talk about something we can keep people, especially young people, from thinking about it, but if that doesn’t work with the other elephants – such as prejudice, death, and the obscene and growing gap between wealth and poverty – why should it work with this elephant? Sure, if we talk too much about sex we might lead people to think it is more important than it really is, but if we don’t talk about it, what will people think then? Just to talk about sex at all is, in the minds of some, to give it a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve, as a second-class part of God’s creation, ranking somewhere around the process of eliminating waste products from our bodies. Their attitude becomes “Let’s not talk about it; people might get the wrong idea.” What would that idea be?

Some hold the view that the Church is or should be asexual, as though that is more “holy” than being sexual. However, what “holy” really means is not “removed from the physical world” but “dedicated to God.” Everything in our lives should be so dedicated.

Here is where we are, as a culture in nominally Christian America today: conflicted, hypocritical, fearful, and confused. On the one hand, we package sex as a commodity and use it to sell all sorts of other commodities, including politicians, cars, health products, clothes, physical fitness and diet, and leisure pursuits. On the other hand, we treat sex as a shameful secret to be hidden from our children, even when they already know about it.

. . . How did we become a culture so sexually liberated on the one hand, while being so sexually repressed on the other? In the United States we are not two different cultures where sex is concerned, but a single, pervasively confused culture. How did we become so conflicted about such a fundamental part of life? The short answer is fear, compounded by envy and religious hegemony in spite of our professed religious tolerance. Because sex is an important part of life and we all have an interest in it, both societal and personal, we are afraid on multiple levels.

. . . At times it seems that sex is one of God’s jokes on the human race. Certainly it produces a lot of pain and confusion as it is presented to us through the conflicted norms of American culture and the voices of the media. Young males endowed with raging testosterone are told for many years: “Look, but don’t you dare touch!” Young females are often told: “You must make yourself desirable, but don’t you dare let anyone satisfy that desire with you!” Gay and lesbian youth and adults may be told: “Your desire is even more ridiculous and offensive than normal desires, so you really can’t act on it!” Lost in this wilderness of fear and folly is any remembrance of the essential goodness of God’s creation, or the dignity of human beings as moral agents made in the image of God.

Sexuality and spirituality may be related in more than one way. They may be placed in opposition to one another, in a reversion to Greek dualism, which is not biblical. In this view, the Church tends to be seen as the enforcer of socially approved sexual behavior, and homosexual relationships are ruled out as incompatible with traditional Christian teaching. Another way, which is biblical, is to see sexuality as an expression of relationship, including divine-human relationship. In this view, sexuality and spirituality are partners, and both are a divine gift. Either can be misused, and so corrupt the other, or they can be mutually reinforcing, as in the case of same-sex partners who demonstrate in their long-term committed relationship a fidelity that mirrors the faithfulness of God.

- Excerpted from A Theology of Gay and Lesbian Inclusion: Love Letters to the Church by Donald G. Hanway (Haworth Press, 2006).


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Non-Negotiables of Human Sex
Joan Timmerman on the “Wisdom of the Body”
What Is It That Ails You?
Compassion, Christian Community, and Homosexuality
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
The Triumph of Love: An Easter Reflection
Trusting God’s Generous Invitation
Celebrating Our Sanctifying Truth
Real Holiness
My Advent Prayer for the Church
In the Footsteps of Spring
Cherish
Charis
Grounded Angel
Love is Love
And Love is Lord of All