Italian Cardinal Calls for a “New Vision” for Sexuality

Perusing through the latest issue of the National Catholic Reporter today on the bus, I came across the following “World News Brief” that caught my attention - and gives me hope!

(The cardinal’s remarks in this particular story remind me of Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson’s “radical” call for reform of the Church’s sexual theology.)

_________________________

“New Vision” for Sexuality Needed
National Catholic Reporter
November 14, 2008

Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini said the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (“Of Human Life”) has cut off the church from many of the people who most need its advice about human sexuality and suggested it may be time for a “new vision” for sexuality and birth control.

The encyclical, which teaches that artificial birth control is morally wrong, caused a large number of people to stop taking the church’s views seriously, Martini said. “Serious damage was done.”

Martini, an 81-year-old Jesuit and the former archbishop of Milan, made the comments in a book-length interview titled Nighttime Conversations in Jerusalem. He did not address specifically the morality of contraception but suggested that the question might be better approached from a more pastoral perspective.

Today, he said, the church might be able to adopt “a new vision” and indicate “a better way” than it did in Humanae Vitae. “The church would regain credibility and competence,” he said.

“Knowing how to admit one’s errors and the limitations of one’s previous viewpoints is a sign of greatness of soul and confidence,” he said.

He said the church should take a positive approach to human sexuality, with less emphasis on prohibitions. “Whatever the church affirms, it should be supported by many people, by responsible Christians who want to be conscientious in love,” he said.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Robert McClory on Humanae Vitae
An Australian Bishop’s “Radical” Call for Reform
Stop in the Name of Discriminatory Ideology
The Non-Negotiables of Human Sex
Relationship: The Crucial Factor in Sexual Morality
Joan Timmerman on the “Wisdom of the Body”
How Times Have Changed
A Church That Can and Cannot Change
Truth Telling: The Greatest of Sins in a Dysfunctional Church
A Catholic Understanding of Faithful Dissent (Part 1)
A Catholic Understanding of Faithful Dissent (Part 2)

Fr. Roy Bourgeois Threatened with Excommunication

Last month the Vatican notified Fr. Roy Bourgeois, a Maryknoll priest of 36 years, that he had 30 days to recant his statement of public support for women’s ordination or he will be automatically excommunicated.

I’ve had the honor of meeting Fr. Roy on a number of occasions - including at the annual protest of the U.S. Army School of the Americas - an event that draws tens of thousands every November to Fort Benning, Georgia. In fact, Roy is the co-founder of SOA Watch - a network of activists dedicated to documenting the numerous atrocities committed by graduates of the SOA. I’ve long been inspired by Fr. Roy’s tireless dedication to justice and peace - a dedication that he extends to his own church and to the issue of female ordination.

The Vatican’s ultimatum was delivered after Fr. Bourgeois co-presided and gave the homily during the August 9 ordination ceremony of Roman Catholic Womanpriest Janice Sevre-Duszynska in Lexington, Kentucky.

Following is Fr. Roy Bourgeois’ November 7 response to the Vatican.

__________________________

To the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,

I was very saddened by your letter dated October 21, 2008, giving me 30 days to recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church, or I will be excommunicated.

I have been a Catholic priest for 36 years and have a deep love for my Church and ministry.

When I was a young man in the military, I felt God was calling me to the priesthood. I entered Maryknoll and was ordained in 1972.

Over the years I have met a number of women in our Church who, like me, feel called by God to the priesthood. You, our Church leaders at the Vatican, tell us that women cannot be ordained.

With all due respect, I believe our Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue is wrong and does not stand up to scrutiny. A 1976 report by the Pontifical Biblical Commission supports the research of Scripture scholars, canon lawyers and many faithful Catholics who have studied and pondered the Scriptures and have concluded that there is no justification in the Bible for excluding women from the priesthood.

As people of faith, we profess that the invitation to the ministry of priesthood comes from God. We profess that God is the Source of life and created men and women of equal stature and dignity. The current Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women implies our loving and all-powerful God, Creator of heaven and earth, somehow cannot empower a woman to be a priest.

Women in our Church are telling us that God is calling them to the priesthood. Who are we, as men, to say to women, “Our call is valid, but yours is not.” Who are we to tamper with God’s call?

Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard or how long we may try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is always immoral.

Hundreds of Catholic churches in the U.S. are closing because of a shortage of priests. Yet there are hundreds of committed and prophetic women telling us that God is calling them to serve our Church as priests.

If we are to have a vibrant, healthy Church rooted in the teachings of our Savior, we need the faith, wisdom, experience, compassion and courage of women in the priesthood.

Conscience is very sacred. Conscience gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter, a humble Austrian farmer, husband and father of four young children, to refuse to join Hitler’s army, which led to his execution. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say she could no longer sit in the back of the bus. Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. Conscience is what compelled my dear mother and father, now 95, to always strive to do the right things as faithful Catholics raising four children. And after much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing. I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.

Working and struggling for peace and justice are an integral part of our faith. For this reason, I speak out against the war in Iraq. And for the last eighteen years, I have been speaking out against the atrocities and suffering caused by the School of the Americas (SOA).

Eight years ago, while in Rome for a conference on peace and justice, I was invited to speak about the SOA on Vatican Radio. During the interview, I stated that I could not address the injustice of the SOA and remain silent about injustice in my Church. I ended the interview by saying, “There will never be justice in the Catholic Church until women can be ordained.” I remain committed to this belief today.

Having an all male clergy implies that men are worthy to be Catholic priests, but women are not.

According to USA Today (Feb. 28, 2008) in the United States alone, nearly 5,000 Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children. Many bishops, aware of the abuse, remained silent. These priests and bishops were not excommunicated. Yet the women in our Church who are called by God and are ordained to serve God’s people, and the priests and bishops who support them, are excommunicated.

Silence is the voice of complicity. Therefore, I call on all Catholics, fellow priests, bishops, Pope Benedict XVI and all Church leaders at the Vatican, to speak loudly on this grave injustice of excluding women from the priesthood.

Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was assassinated because of his defense of the oppressed. He said, “Let those who have a voice, speak out for the voiceless.”

Our loving God has given us a voice. Let us speak clearly and boldly and walk in solidarity as Jesus would, with the women in our Church who are being called by God to the priesthood.

In Peace and Justice,
Rev. Roy Bourgeois, M.M.
PO Box 3330, Columbus, GA 31903

_____________________________________

Following are some addresses that you can send your letters of support for Fr. Roy.

Please write, fax, or email to Pope Benedict XVI, and/or the Pope’s Ambassador to the U.S., the Apostolic Nuncio, and/or the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, the group that is moving toward excommunication of Fr. Roy Bourgeois, and/or The leaders of the Maryknoll Order. Their addresses are below.

Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W, Washington, DC, USA
Telephone: (202) 333-7121
Fax: 337-4036

Pope Benedict XVI
00120 Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano, Europe
The Pope's email address (for English correspondence) is:
benedictxvi@ vatican.va
FAX from USA:
011-39-06698- 85378

Congregation for Doctrine of Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11,
00193 Roma, Italy
Telephone: 06.69.88.33. 57; 06.69.88.34. 13
Fax: 06.69.88.34. 09

Superior General, John Sivalon at jsivalon@maryknoll. org
and to the three-member Maryknoll Council at
mklcouncil@maryknol l.org and/or fax to 914-944-3600
Write to: Maryknoll Council P.O. Box 303 Maryknoll, NY 10545


Recommended Off-site Links:
Roy Bourgeois, Conscience, and Canon Law - James Martin, SJ (America, November 15, 2008).
Father’s Blessing Brings Peace to Roy Bourgeois - Thomas Roberts (National Catholic Reporter, November 17, 2008).
Open Letter to the Pope About Female Ordinations - Charlotte Therese (November 18, 2008).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Mary of Magdala
Revealing a Hidden History
Reflections on The Da Vinci Code Controversy
Thoughts on The Da Vinci Code
Roman Catholic Womenpriests Ordained in Minneapolis
Thoughts on Ordination, Intellectual Dishonesty, and the Holy Spirit of which the Prophet Joel Speaks
Could Christ Have Been a Woman?
Responding to Excommunication
The Discussion Continues
Crisis? What Crisis?
“We Are All the Rock” – An Interview with Roman Catholic Womanpriest, Judith McKloskey

Image: Fr. Roy Boureois photographed by Michael Bayly (from Gallery 6: Closing the SOA of Faces of Resistance).

"A Useful, Essential, and Comprehensive Manual"

I recently came across another review of my 2007 book, Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective. This one’s written by Lakehead University professor Gerald Walton and was first published in the July 2008 issue of the Canadian Journal of Education.

As you’ll see, Walton takes issue with Genevieve Goodsil-Todd’s introduction to the book, and in particular her “problematic” and “irresponsible” position of supporting LGBT students without challenging “church teachings on homosexuality and the spread of harm and hate against LGBT families.”

Goodsil-Todd may not question and challenge church teaching on homosexuality, but elsewhere in the book I do. Indeed, as I noted in this previous Wild Reed post, it was because of such questioning that Archbishop Angelo Amato of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared, in a June 2007 letter to Archbishop Harry Flynn of the St. Paul/Minneapolis Archdiocese, that Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective was “not suitable to be used in Catholic schools.”

Following is Gerald Walton’s review.

____________________________________

A Review of
Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students:
A Catholic Schools Perspective

Michael J. Bayly. (Ed.). (2007). New York: Harrington Park.
152 pages. ISBN-13: 978-1-56023-606 (paperback)

By Gerald Walton
Canadian Journal of Education
July 2008

In her introduction to Michael J. Bayly’s Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students, Genevieve Goodsil-Todd argues that, “the crisis for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] students is a fundamentally spiritual one” (p. 1), meaning that LGBT youth struggle to find themselves within the image and likeness of God. Later, she asserts that, “the moral teachings on homosexuality . . . need not be compromised by programs that provide pastoral care to all students” (pp. 2-3, italics in original).

Her position is problematic, given that Human Rights Watch, (an organization dedicated to protecting human rights internationally) has named Pope Benedict XVI to their 2007 Hall of Shame. Goodsil-Todd does not address, and in doing so dismisses, the spread of harmful myths and misconceptions about LGBT people that descend from the very top of the Catholic hierarchy. Pope Benedict XVI has tremendous political sway over legions of followers. To suggest that Catholic educators can support LGBT students but not challenge church teachings on homosexuality and the spread of harm and hate against LGBT families strikes me as irresponsible. It is like saying that a bridge can be built on quicksand.

To be fair, Bayly’s book is dedicated towards supporting LGBT students in Catholic schools rather than addressing church-based bigotry. Yet, an introduction is a prominent feature of any book, and Goodsil-Todd has written one that casually ignores the Church’s clearly articulated anti-LGBT agenda. As an ex-“born-again” Christian, I can smell the “love the sinner, hate the sin” contradiction when it wafts through the air. It is not simply that the Church opposes homosexuality on moral grounds. Rather, according to Human Rights Watch, Pope Benedict XVI has actively “intervened in politics . . . to condemn . . . equal rights or any form of recognition for lesbian and gay families,” including marriage and adoption of children.

Attempting to foster safety for LGBT students in Catholic schools while not contesting the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and condemnation of gay and lesbian families is thus an ethically untenable position. Cultures of harm and stigma are exacerbated for the very students who are identified in Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students as needing protection. The teachings and political campaigns of powerful religious leaders, among others, validate environments that are already hostile towards LGBT youth in all schools, Catholic or otherwise.

Goodsil-Todd’s dismissal of papal-sanctioned bigotry undermines the very important and valid intent of the book, which is to facilitate the provision of safe learning environments for LGBT youth in Catholic schools. On that purpose, Bayly has edited a comprehensive and timely volume that illuminates issues that are – at least for many – difficult and contentious.

Bayly is the Project Coordinator of the Safe Schools Project, an initiative of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Although the book is primarily for educators who value gender identity and sexual orientation diversities in society and in Catholic schools, it attempts to appeal to those who do not. Bayly lays out how to facilitate five two-hour sessions that collectively foster inclusive schools for LGBT students and their families. In Session One (Laying the Foundations), participants discuss sexuality diversity, stereotypes, and myths of LGBT people, and recent research findings about LGBT youth in Catholic schools.

Session Two (Defining Safe Staff) focuses on understanding the roles and responsibilities of being an LGBT ally, discussing terms such as homophobia and heterosexism, and highlighting the harm to youth that results from not addressing either.

“Coming out” is the focus of Session Three. The complications and risks of coming out are effectively described, but they overshadow the benefits and rewards. Coming out can benefit both individual students and the school culture as a whole, risks notwithstanding.

Session 4 (The LGBT Reality and the Catholic Church) attends to the vexing questions about biblical interpretation and is applicable broadly rather than only to Catholic contexts. Bayly accurately notes that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Prejudice, discrimination, and violence towards LGBT people, disguised as Christian morality and righteousness, are thus unacceptable and biblically unfounded. (Ted Haggard: take note!)

The final session (The Classroom Setting and Beyond) describes strategies for facilitating school cultures of respect, communicating effectively with parents, and forming supportive groups for LGBT youth and youth with LGBT family members. One section is especially effective at drawing connections between various types of oppression expressed in discriminatory language such as “Indian giver,” “retard,” “bitch,” (which looks silly described as “the ‘B’ word”), “fat,” and “that's so gay!” Slurs on the basis of religion, culture, racialized category, ethnicity, or physical ability, among others, could also have been included here.

All these sections would have been useful in 2002 as education for the administrators of Marc Hall’s Catholic public high school. Marc filed a human rights complaint when they did not allow him to take his same-sex partner to the prom, generating a flurry of publicity in the process. In short, he won.

LGBT youth exist in any school, even if they are “in the closet.” In Canada, various teachers’ organizations provide workshops and educational materials on LGBT issues, such as the Alberta Teachers’ Association and the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. The website of Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia includes a wealth of resources on LGBT youth issues and how to challenge homophobic bullying. Bayly’s edited volume addresses some questions that are specific to Catholic educators. However, most of the lesson plans, handouts, and activities can be applied to any school context.

Given religiously-based backlash against LGBT visibility in society and legal rights that are equal to, but do not supercede those of heterosexuals (such as so-called “gay marriage” in Canada), Bayly’s book is a useful, essential, and comprehensive manual that addresses issues that are widely perceived as difficult and controversial. For those who are unconvinced, the bottom line is simple: all students deserve to learn in schools that are free of bigotry and violence. Bayly’s book is an excellent step in that direction.

– Gerald Walton
Faculty of Education, Lakehead University

Above: Signing a copy of Creating Safe Environments
for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective for my friend and
Roman Catholic Womanpriest, Rev. Regina Nicolosi - June 2007.

For other reviews of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective, see the previous Wild Reed posts:
“A Courageous Document”
“A Valiant Effort”

See also the related Wild Reed posts:
Confronting Classroom Homophobia
One of These Boys is Not Like the Others
Trusting God’s Generous Invitation
The Triumph of Love: An Easter Reflection

Catholics Join in Nationwide Protests of Prop 8

Around the nation and the world today Catholics joined with hundreds of thousands to protest what Jim Burroway has called “the unprecedented stripping of rights from gays and lesbians with the passage of California’s Proposition 8, as well as the passage of anti-marriage amendments in Arizona and Florida.”

In the photo above, David McCaffrey (left), co-founder of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), and I stand on the steps of the Minnesota Capitol in St. Paul, holding a banner that declares: “Catholics for LGBT Equality” (a banner that was originally created by Catholic Rainbow Parents Mike and Mary Lynn Murphy for this event).

One of the speakers at today’s rally in St. Paul, Minnesota Senator Patricia Torres Ray (DFL, District 62), made special note of our banner when she remarked that the reason she works for the civil rights of gays and lesbians is precisely because she is Catholic. It was a great moment!

Torres Ray clearly recognizes and seeks to embody Catholicism's long and rich tradition of working to increase the well-being of all - though especially those who are disadvantaged and marginalized. I find it intriguing that when it comes to women and LGBT people, the laity is quite a few steps ahead of the hierarchy in this regard. For instance, a study earlier this year by the Pew Forum of Religion in America showed, 58% of Catholics favor acceptance of homosexuality. Such approval is proportionately greater in the Roman Catholic Church than in other Christian churches or in the nation as a whole. In addition, a study by the Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education has found that 57% of students in Catholic universities and colleges believe same-gender marriage should be legal.

Of course, these figures will only increase with time - both within and beyond Catholicism. In other words, the granting of civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians is inevitable.

This afternoon’s rally in St. Paul drew about 200 people. An earlier protest in downtown Minneapolis reportedly drew between 500 - 1,000. In other parts of Minnesota, Prop 8 protests took place in Duluth and Moorhead.

Below are more photographs from today’s rally at the Minnesota State Capitol. These are followed by excerpts from Associated Press writer Jay Lindsay’s article, “Across Nation, Gay Advocates Protest Marriage Ban.”

Across Nation, Gay Advocates Protest Marriage Ban
By Jay Lindsay
Associated Press
November 15, 2008

Gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast Saturday to protest the vote that banned gay marriage in California and to urge supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.

Crowds gathered near public buildings in cities large and small, including Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Fargo, to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.

“Civil marriages are a civil right, and we’re going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens,” Karen Amico said in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading “Don’t Spread H8.”

“We are the American family, we live next door to you, we teach your children, we take care of your elderly,” said Heather Baker a special education teacher from Boston who addressed the crowd at Boston’s City Hall Plaza. “We need equal rights across the country.”



Connecticut, which began same-sex weddings this past week, and Massachusetts are the only two states that allow gay marriage. The other 48 states do not, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of approving constitutional amendments. A few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage.

Protests following the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, have sometimes been angry and even violent, and demonstrators have targeted faiths that supported the ban, including the Mormon church.

However, representatives of Join the Impact, which organized Saturday’s demonstrations, asked supporters to be respectful and refrain from attacking other groups during the rallies.

Seattle blogger Amy Balliett, who started the planning for the protests when she set up a Web page three days after the California vote, said persuasion is impossible without civility.

“If we can move anybody past anger and have a respectful conversation, then you can plant the seed of change,” she said.

Balliett said supporters in 300 cities in the U.S. and other countries were holding marches, and she estimated 1 million people would participate, based on responses at the Web sites her group set up.

“We need to show the world when one thing happens to one of us, it happens to all of us,” she said.


The protests were widely reported to be peaceful, and the mood in Boston was generally upbeat, with attendees dancing to the song “Respect.” Signs cast the fight for gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, including one that read “Gay is the new black.”


Recommended Off-site Links:
Rallies Across America - Jim Burroway (Box Turtle Bulletin, November 15, 2008).
Minneapolis Rally Protests Gay Marriage Ban - Curt Brown (Star Tribune, November 15, 2008).
Minnesota’s Prop 8 Protests in Pictures, Words - Andy Birkey (Eleventh Avenue South, November 18, 2008).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
In the Aftermath of Proposition 8, a Chance to “Join the Impact”
Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8
The Real Sodomites: The Proponents of Proposition 8
Unrest in California Over Passing of Proposition 8
Reflections on the Passage of Proposition 8
Fr. Geoff Farrow on Proposition 8
A Mayor’s Change of Heart

Images 1-8: Michael J. Bayly.

Image 9: Alexander Sanchez of San Francisco, waves a rainbow colored flag to a large crowd of supporters of same-sex marriage as they cheer in front of San Francisco City Hall on Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008. Thousands of demonstrators gathered to listen to speakers and protest the passage of Proposition 8, a ballot measure amending California’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The event is part of a simultaneous protest planned in hundreds of communities. (Associated Press Photo/Darryl Bush)

Images 10 and 12: Demonstrators turn out for marriage equality at Los Angeles City Hall as part of a National Day of Action in response to the recent passage of Proposition 8 which repeals the right of same sex couples to marry in California, Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Gus Ruelas)

Image 11: Luke Duran holds up a sign during a protest against the passage of Proposition 8 in California, outside the City/County Building in Denver on Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008. Nearly 1,000 people were there to voice their opposition to Proposition 8. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

Prop 8 Protests in Minnesota

Friends,

Those of you in Minnesota my be interested in the following information regarding this weekend’s protests against the recent passage of Proposition 8, which extinguished equal marriage rights for same-gender couples in California. As you may know, demonstrations are being planned around the country as part of a strong grassroots response to last week’s vote.

NOTE: All protests are scheduled for Saturday, November 15th, 12:30 pm, with the exception of the St. Paul protest which will take place at 3:00 p.m.

Minneapolis
Hennepin County Government Center
350 S. 5th St, Minneapolis


St. Paul
Minnesota State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd


Duluth/Superior
MN Power Plaza at Lake Ave. and Superior Street


Fargo/Moorhead
Fargo (west) side of the Veterans Memorial Bridge on Main Ave.

Finally, I appreciate what OutFront Minnesota has to say about tomorrow’s protests: “OutFront Minnesota supports peaceful, legal protests. They are an important component of civil rights movements. They have the capacity to keep the equality message alive and active. Media may show up to cover the protests - if you’re interviewed, keep it positive (All we want is equality under the law!). If you engage with counter-protesters, we encourage you to keep it peaceful. And remember – the defeat in California won’t defeat our movement!”



Recommended Off-site Links:
Join the Impact!
Protests, Boycotts Erupt in the Wake of Prop 8’s Passage - Mary Anne Ostrom (Mercury News, November 13, 2008).
Nationwide Protests Called for Saturday - Jim Burroway (Box Turtle Bulletin, November 11, 2008).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
In the Aftermath of Proposition 8, a Chance to “Join the Impact”
Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8
The Real Sodomites: The Proponents of Proposition 8
Unrest in California Over Passing of Proposition 8
Reflections on the Passage of Proposition 8
Fr. Geoff Farrow on Proposition 8
A Mayor’s Change of Heart

The Bishops and Obama (Part 2)

Over at the excellent Nihil Obstat blogsite, Censor Librorum has posted a wise and timely reflection on why, “in spite of 50 dioceses issuing ‘pro-life’ voting statements, every anti-abortion initiative was voted down, and the presidential election went to Barak Obama.”

Censor Librorum believes that the primary reason that Catholic voters voted for Barack Obama was the economy. Other reasons include President Bush’s unpopularity; doubts about Sarah Palin, coupled with concerns about John McCain’s age; and unhappiness with the overall direction of the country.

Yes, this is all very interesting, but the part of Censor Librorum’s commentary that I found most insightful and compelling is as follows:

Catholic voters voted for change. What can the bishops learn from this?

Focusing solely on abortion and to some degree, same-sex marriage, is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when the passengers are heading for the lifeboats. They are not the primary concerns of most Catholic voters. The economy is.

The bishops have not regained, and may not for decades, the prestige and respect they lost in the clerical sex abuse scandal. Making pronouncements from on high is not an effective strategy. Meeting people where they are is.

Many liberal Catholics, myself included, are not pro-abortion. But because conservative politicians are unattractive on many other levels, I can’t vote for them on single issue platforms. Instead, I prefer to vote for candidates that promote alternatives to unwanted pregnancies. This is another way of addressing the same problem: abortion.

“Unwed mother” no longer carries the social stigma it did decades ago. When teenagers get pregnant, they don’t automatically give up their baby for adoption or end up in an unwanted marriage. Or get an abortion. Many of them want to have and keep their baby. The problem is - they have no money or resources to do so. Abortion becomes necessary.

Catholic bishops and Catholic conservatives can stop a lot of abortions by pushing elected representatives to fund programs for single mothers (and fathers) to get financial support for housing, food, pre-natal care, health care, education/job training, and child care.

Quo Vadis, bishops? Are you serious about making an impact on abortions, or do you just want to hear your own voice?

Quo Vadis, bishops? Be realistic. People aren’t going to give up sex. Kids and adults take chances and use nothing or don’t use birth control and get pregnant. Then what? If the woman doesn’t have the resources to give birth and raise the child, what does she do?

Abortion is a moral issue. But it is also an issue of resources.

Will U.S. bishops continue to focus on sex, and make thundering statements about “intrinsic moral evils” and huff and puff and threaten liberal Catholic politicians, and leave it go at that?

Will they also come after conservative Catholic politicians and their allies – threaten them with the loss of communion, status and photo-ops – if they do not do everything in their power to help pregnant girls and women who want to keep their babies and not be consigned to a life in poverty?

Or, will they stop the threats, roll up their sleeves, and live Pro-Life by example.

I suggest every bishop, starting with the 50 who made Pro-Life statements in this election, dedicate a portion of their endowments to support all unwed women who want to keep their child. Bishops can use this money to fund diocesan social service programs, and act as a “safety net” for when the government falls short.

A focus of the annual diocesan parish tithe should be directed to funding programs for these women and their children.

When serious money is on the table, I’ll know they’re serious.

- Censor Librorum
Nihil Obstat
November 7, 2008


See also the previous Wild Reed post:
The Bishops and Obama (Part 1)

Recommended Off-site Link:
Postmortem of the Bishops’ Meeting - John Allen, Jr. (National Catholic Reporter, November 14, 2008).

How Times Have Changed

Did you know there was a time when the Roman Catholic Church could actually recommend “steady partnerships” for gay people?

Don’t believe me? Well, take a moment or two to read the following excerpt from an insightful piece by theologian Daniel Helminiak entitled “Homosexuality in Catholic Teaching and Practice.” It’s from his 2006 book, Sex and the Sacred: Gay Identity and Spiritual Growth.

_______________________________

Catholicism . . . allows for gay and lesbian sex. The Catholic position includes what is called “pastoral application of official teaching”. The notion is that, in practice, the general principles of official teachings need to be prudently applied to fit individual cases. People are different. No two cases are exactly alike. What is ideally required is not always attainable, so allowances need to be made in pastoral situations, in one-on-one counseling, or in the privacy of the confessional. People can be required to do only what they are able.

The Vatican mentality follows the Roman notion of law. Laws are thought to express ideals that people should strive to achieve. Laws do not, as in English and American traditions, express minimum requirements that must be met. Catholic ethics propose ideals, and these apply variably in individual cases.

Thus, Father Jan Visser, a principal author of the 1975 Vatican document on sexual ethics, could write in the January 30, 1976, edition of L’Europa, “When one is dealing with people who are so deeply homosexual that they will be in serious personal or social trouble unless they obtain a steady partnership within their homosexual lives, one can recommend them to seek such a partnership, and one accepts this relationship as the best they can do in their present situation.” This is authentic Catholic teaching. In practice, for the good of individuals and society, in certain circumstances Catholicism may even recommend lesbian and gay relationships.

(NOTE: For further excerpts from Helminiak’s “Homosexuality in Catholic Teaching and Practice,” see the previous Wild Reed post, Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality: “Complex and Nuanced” Says Theologian.)

__________________________________

Yes, yes, I know. When it comes to gay people, the idea and practice of “pastoral application of official teaching” has long been thrown out the window.

David McCaffrey, co-founder in 1980 of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), recalls how in the early days of the group there was a clear distinction between the “official teaching” and “pastoral practice.” In those days, CPCSM did not challenge church teaching. Why should it? There was room then to be prudent and creative and sensitive to gay people’s particular experiences and pastoral needs. And contrary to what the chancery of the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis may say now, the ministry work of CPCSM was indeed considered at that time to be within the Catholic fold.

Now, of course, the Church’s response to its gay members emphasizes strict adherence to “official teaching,” to doctrines, rules, and the letter-of-the-law. And you know what? This is probably a good thing because it has forced Catholics – and gay Catholics in particular – to realize just how dysfunctional and lacking in compassion and insight this teaching and such a legalistic approach really are. There’s no avoiding it; no taking refuge in that “out” once provided by the “pastoral application of official teaching.”

I, for one, welcome this. I wasn’t even out as gay back in the 1970s and ‘80s when the Church, to varying degrees, allowed for the “pastoral approach” toward gays. I was in high school and fearfully ignorant of the truth about myself. To be honest, though, I actually find the “pastoral approach” somewhat demeaning. “Oh, you poor homosexual,” I can well hear some saying (or at least thinking) back then, “you’re so afflicted that you can’t possibly live up to our teaching. We’ll find a way to let you off the hook.”

Yeah, well, sorry. It’s the hook that’s the problem.

And today the overwhelming number of gay Catholics know it and have simply left. The Vatican’s infamous “Halloween Letter” of 1986 was the death kneel for the “pastoral application of official teaching” approach. Gay people felt utterly betrayed and, as I noted, many simply walked.

Many of those who stayed began educating themselves about the history and development of the Church’s teaching on not only homosexuality, but human sexuality in general. It was during this period that I came of age as a Catholic gay man. And for that I'm very grateful.

What LGBT Catholics discovered about Church teaching as a result of such research (coupled, I should add, with prayerful reflection) was that it was insultingly insensitive, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt. Not surprisingly, we have dedicated ourselves to facilitating change. This, of course, is no easy task, especially when gay Catholics who, in good conscience, reject the Church’s view of the “intrinsically disordered” nature of the homosexual orientation and call for reform of Church teaching, are dismissed and even maligned by the hierarchy - members of which see themselves as the guardians of a closed system of ideas and beliefs that cannot accommodate new insights and information.

As a result we’re left with discriminatory ideology masquerading as theology; and a “fortress under siege” mentality that has usurped an understanding of church as a pilgrim people still learning and growing.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: as Catholics we can do better.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Non-Negotiables of Human Sex
Relationship: The Crucial Factor in Sexual Morality
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
Making Love, Giving Life
Compassion, Christian Community, and Homosexuality
Be Not Afraid, You Can Be Happy and Gay!
Truth Telling: The Greatest of Sins in a Dysfunctional Church
The Catholic Church and Gays: An Excellent Historical Overview

The Bishops and Obama (Part 1)

Yesterday the New York Times reported that the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Francis George, is “urging” his fellow prelates to challenge Barack Obama on the abortion issue.

Recent remarks of Cardinal George “were a repudiation of the ‘common good’ approach to the abortion issue that President-elect Barack Obama and Democratic Party leaders, including some prominent Roman Catholics, honed in the recent election,” writes Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times.

She goes on to note that:

Advocates of the “common good” approach say that, rather than outlawing abortion — which has polarized the American electorate for decades — they will try to reduce abortions by strengthening the social and economic safety net to enable more women to bring their pregnancies to term.

Cardinal George said in a news conference that while the bishops supported “social welfare programs that come to the aid of the poor,” they also would continue to lobby for legislative and legal restrictions on abortion.

Abortion is not the only issue on which the bishops plan to challenge the president-elect. Over the weekend, aides to Mr. Obama said he was considering overturning President Bush’s directive that banned most research on embryonic stem cells. Cardinal George said the bishops would “be in conversation” with Mr. Obama on this matter, too.

After eight years of a Republican president who invoked Catholic language to cement his anti-abortion platform, the bishops are now confronting an incoming Democratic administration that has championed abortion rights.

In the closing months of the presidential race, several Catholic bishops skirted close to endorsing the Republican candidate for president, Senator John McCain, by proclaiming that Catholics could not in good conscience vote for a candidate who favored abortion rights.

The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, and a longtime chronicler of the bishops, said, “The result was that the most vocal bishops gave the appearance of speaking for all the bishops, and the others just kept silent.”

Many more bishops voiced their outrage, individually and collectively, at Mr. Obama’s vice-presidential pick, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who in interviews both invoked Catholic teaching to justify their stance in favor of abortion rights.

Nevertheless, after the election, exit polls found that 54 percent of Catholic voters had voted for the Obama-Biden ticket.

Meanwhile, Dr. Patrick Whelan, a pediatrician and president of Catholic Democrats, has told the Associated Press that “angry statements from church leaders were counterproductive and would only alienate Catholics.” (I think he means further alienate Catholics!)

“We’re calling on the bishops to move away from the more vicious language,” Whelan said. He also believes the Church needs to act in a more creative, constructive way,” to end abortion.

Along with Catholic Democrats, Catholics United was another group that argued during the recent election campaign that taking the “pro-life” position means more than opposing abortion rights.

Chris Korzen, the group’s executive director, said, “we honestly want to move past the deadlock” on abortion. He says that church leaders are making that task harder.

“What are the bishops going to do now?” Korzen said. “They have burned a lot of bridges with the Democrats and the new administration.”

This whole issue reminds me of the editorial in the October 31 issue of the National Catholic Reporter. I consider it to be one of the most incisive and succinct appraisals of the bishops’ abortion stance I’ve read. It’s reprinted in its entirety below.

__________________________________________

The Bishops’ Futile Election Strategy
National Catholic Reporter
October 31, 2008

Another presidential election cycle is nearly ended, and once again the Catholic bishops in the United States have sadly distinguished themselves for the narrowness and, in too many cases, barely concealed partisanship of their political views.

Cycle after cycle they have promulgated the same message: Abortion trumps all other issues and the only credible approach to fighting abortion is voting for candidates who express a wish to overthrow Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

We have persistently criticized the American bishops on this page for such a limited political strategy. For more than a quarter of a century they have generally used whatever political capital they might have in attempts to deliver the Catholic vote to whomever is making the most agreeable promises that year.

Year after year, however, the bishops get little in return for their anti-abortion political endorsements, while often aiding in the election of politicians who have little regard for the rest of the church’s social agenda.

The abortion rate has been going down steadily in America, from a high of 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44 in 1981 to 19.4 abortions for the same demographic through 2005, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

No one has the definitive answer on why the rate is decreasing. Depending on political persuasion and which side of the debate one falls on, the possible reasons range from more emphasis on abstinence programs to better education and more funding for prevention of pregnancy. Undoubtedly, one unquantifiable element is continuing education about the reality of abortion and the sacredness of life that has persuaded some to bring pregnancies to term.

No one, however, is suggesting that politicians promising to overturn Roe had any influence on a woman’s choosing to bring a child to term.

The point is significant, especially this year when highly credible voices in the Catholic community have been successful in reframing a Catholic approach to the abortion issue. Legal scholars Douglas Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi, who have unimpeachable anti-abortion credentials, among others have advanced compelling arguments regarding the futility of using a legal ban as a political litmus test.

Kmiec, who worked on briefs attempting to overturn Roe, said earlier this year when explaining his support for Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama: “We have been at the business of trying to find the elusive fifth vote on the Supreme Court for 30 years. We haven’t found it and even if we do find it, overturning Roe would not save a single life, but instead merely return the question to the states. While that would be important, it is not intended and never was intended to close the American mind or, for that matter, the Catholic mind to different or alternative ways to discourage abortion.”

Republican candidate Sen. John McCain has found favor among many bishops by agreeing with their conviction that Roe should be overturned. If that conviction is the sole guiding criterion, the choice becomes easy.

This year, however, Democrats have added a plank to their platform promising to enact programs aimed at reducing abortions by attacking some of the root causes, especially among the poor and minorities. It is distressing to witness so many members of the hierarchy eagerly dismissing the possibility of an alternative approach.

Indeed, the Guttmacher Institute reports that although the overall abortion rate is declining, “research has found that unintended pregnancy and abortion rates are ... increasing among poor and low-income women.” The report advises, “Policymakers at the state and federal levels should be asking themselves what can be done to help poor women and women of color prevent unintended pregnancies and achieve better health outcomes.”

Instead of a thoughtful discussion of the political options, the Catholic community has been overwhelmed by shouting from the most extreme ideologues and partisans. Among the bishops it is easy to spot - and hear - the most imprudent. There are exceptions, of course. It is the extremes, however, that drive the news and the general impressions of the Catholic community. No one among the bishops has had the courage to stand up to such misuse of office and distortion of the documents that the bishops themselves have promulgated over several decades.

Bishops who hold that a legal ban is the only approach to the abortion issue, as one observer put it, damage the church and the pro-life cause.

Certainly the conduct of many of the bishops this election cycle has diminished the significance of abortion and undermined the importance of the rest of the Catholic social agenda by turning the abortion issue into a partisan rallying cry. Their conduct further erodes the legitimate authority of an already beleaguered episcopal conference.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Catholic Bishops Will Fight Obama on Abortion - Rachel Zoll (Associated Press, November 12, 2008).
Cardinal George Issues Blunt Challenge to Obama on Abortion - John L. Allen, Jr. (National Catholic Reporter, November 11, 2008).
It Ain’t Easy Being a Bishop, Especially After the ’08 Elections - John L. Allen, Jr. (National Catholic Reporter, November 9, 2008).
Catholics Contribute to Sweeping Victory for Obama and Biden - Patrick Whelan (Catholic Democrats, November 5, 2008).
Obama’s Abortion Straightjacket - Steve Waldman (ChristianityToday.com, November 3, 2008).
Why Some Anti-Abortion Catholics Support Obama - Barbara Bradley Hegerty (National Public Radio, October 30, 2008).
Anti-Abortion Group Tries to Swiftboat Obama - Bill Berkowitz (AlterNet.com, October 13, 2008).
The Next Smear Against Obama: “Infanticide” - Seth Colter Walls (The Huffington Post, August 4, 2008).
“Dear Senator Obama” - An Open Letter - John F. Kavanaugh (America, August 18, 2008).
Barack Obama and Abortion: A Response to John Kavanaugh, S.J. - Douglas W. Kmiec (America, September 8, 2008).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
U.S. Catholic Bishops: “Playing Politics on Abortion”
The Church’s Teaching on Abortion: Unchanged and Unchangeable?

Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8

At both of the work-related meetings I was at today a popular topic of conversation was Keith Olbermann’s impassioned “special comment” on Proposition 8, delivered last night on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann program.

I didn’t see the segment in question; in fact, I’ve never seen Olbermann’s show. A quick search of the internet, however, rectifies all of that.

So for others who may have missed it, here’s both the video and transcript of Olbermann’s commentary. As you’ll see and read, it’s powerful stuff.

Transcript of Keith Olbermann’s
“Special Comment” on Proposition 8
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
November 10, 2008

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about Prop-8. And I don’t have a personal investment in this: I’m not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want — a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them — no. You can’t have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don’t cause too much trouble. You’ll even give them all the same legal rights — even as you’re taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can’t marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn’t marry?

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage. If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn’t marry another man, or a woman couldn’t marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the “sanctity” of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace . . . that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate… this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then spread happiness — this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness — share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don’t have to help it, you don’t have it applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it. Just don’t put it out. Just don’t extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don’t know and you don’t understand and maybe you don’t even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

“I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam,” he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love.”

Recommended Off-site Link:
Nationwide Protests Called for Saturday - Jim Burroway (Box Turtle Bulletin, November 11, 2008).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
In the Aftermath of Proposition 8, a Chance to “Join the Impact”
The Real Sodomites: The Proponents of Proposition 8
Unrest in California Over Passing of Proposition 8
Reflections on the Passage of Proposition 8
Fr. Geoff Farrow on Proposition 8
A Mayor’s Change of Heart