A Yearning for the Sacred

Recently I shared thoughts on theologian Harvey Cox’s latest book, The Future of Faith.

Last month, Cox was interviewed by Daniel Burke of the Prairie Messenger. Burke prefaces this interview by noting that in The Future of Faith, Cox “argues that Christianity is moving from an Age of Belief dominated by creeds and church hierarchies to an Age of Spirit, in which spirituality is replacing formal religion.”

Following are excerpts from this interview (with thanks to my friend Terry Dosh who first brought it to my attention).

____________________

Daniel Burke: What’s the difference faith and belief?

Harvey Cox: I think of belief as having to do with subordination to ideas or doctrines, a kind of mental assent. Whereas faith is far more deeply rooted in life orientation. I think the confusion of faith as loyalty or adherence to ideas or propositions is a mistake.


Daniel Burke: Don’t some scholars say that religious movements with “high walls” or that require a lot from believers actually are growing quite fast?

Harvey Cox: I know that argument, and for me it’s not persuasive for this reason: look at the charismatic Pentecostal movement. What in the world is growing faster than that? In Africa, in Latin America, in China – those movements are indigenous, non-creedal, and non-hierarchical.

The distinction is not between groups with high walls or explicit rules. It has to do with a yearning people have for a taste of the sacred. I think about the students here at Harvard and what brings them into religious expression. It’s meditative practice, or prayer groups, or religiously motivated social action. It’s experimental and existential. People are growing suspicious of taking something on someone else’s authority, and I think that’s healthy.


Daniel Burke: Have the students changed much since you started teaching at Harvard in ’65?

Harvey Cox: Four decades ago, if you were a religious person, you kept that to yourself. There was no religious studies program at Harvard College, the divinity school was a shrunken little outfit, students were not notably active in churches or their religious institutions.

Now someone did a study that showed students are worshipping more than ever in Harvard’s history. We can’t organize courses in religion fast enough to meet the need. Part of the interest is intellectual curiosity no doubt, but a good deal of it is also a personal searching for something of meaning and value.


Daniel Burke: Your epigraph is a T.S. Eliot poem that says history can be either liberating or imprisoning. How can early Christian history be liberating?

Harvey Cox: The phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades of all these hidden documents and scrolls show that the first 300 years of Christianity were enormously more diverse than we had been given to believe. There was no central creed; it all centered on following Jesus.

It wasn’t until Constantine in the fourth century, who decided he needed ideology to sew together a fragmenting empire, that a whole new thinking was created about what made a Christian, with an emphasis on belief instead of experience.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
A Return to the Spirit
Keeping the Spark Alive: Conversing with “Modern Mystic” Chuck Lofy
In the Garden of Spirituality: Adrian Smith
In the Garden of Spirituality: Patrick Carroll
Revealing a Hidden History
Time for a Church for Grown-Ups
No Patriarchal Hierarchy, No Rigid Conformity
Robert McClory’s “Prophetic Work”
“More Lovely Than the Dawn”: God as Divine Lover

Image: Michael J. Bayly.

"Render Unto Caesar, Bitches!"

.

This particular quote from Kriston Capps’ recent DCist.com commentary gave me a good chuckle and made me think of the character of sassy (and irreverent) gay short order cook Lafayette Reynolds (pictured above) in HBO’s True Blood.

It’s a colorful expression that’s part of Capps informative, insightful, at times humorous, and, yes, often irreverent response to Washington, D.C.’s Archbishop Donald Wuerl’s recent op-ed in the Washington Post concerning the current showdown between the Archdiocese and the D.C. Council over civil rights for gay people. Capps also comments on the “Manhattan Declaration” and aliens – gay ones at that!

Following is Capps’ commentary in its entirety. Enjoy!

__________________________________

The Catholic Church is shaking things up these days, huh? The same Church that silenced Galileo Galilei has acknowledged that aliens could maybe exist. Further, the Church says that xenomorphs might not require redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is only talking astrobiology in theoretical terms right now, but what’s preventing the Vatican from launching its own national space program? Could we see, you know, a mission to Mars?

So alien beings on distant planets who have known neither Christ nor original sin and maybe have acid for blood are A-OK with the Church. Teh gay, however, is not. Archbishop Donald Wuerl – who is not so much a popular guy in the gay ol’ District these days, following the Archdiocese’s controversial threat to rescind its social-work contracts should the D.C. Council legalize gay marriage – takes to the Washington Post today with a column to explain the Church’s view. Writes Wuerl:

While we do not agree with the council on redefining marriage, we recognize that it is firmly committed to opening marriage to homosexual couples. We are asking that new language be developed that more fairly balances different interests -- those of the city to redefine marriage and those of faith groups so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs. The archdiocese has not been alone in requesting broader language. Other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and nationally recognized legal scholars all called for stronger protections for religious freedom in their testimony on the original bill.

It is uncomfortably tempting to make a pun when an Archbishop makes a bad-faith argument.

What the ACLU actually said is that the wording should be clarified to guarantee that churches are not required to perform or host same-sex marriages – which is entirely consistent with the intent of the legislation. City officials are willing to work to make sure this is clear, so long as religious organizations agree to treat their homosexual employees the same way they treat their heterosexual employees.

More in sadness than in anger, Archbishop Wuerl writes, the legislation “would reduce unnecessarily the resources available for outreach.” The Archbishop expresses “a simple recognition that the new requirements by the city for religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriages in their policies could restrict our ability to provide the same level of services as we do now.” For an explanation as to how these policies would restrict the Archdiocese, Wuerl writes, “Since Catholic Charities cannot comply with city mandates to recognize and promote same-sex marriages, the city would withhold contracts and licenses.” It would be the District turning down the Church!

What Wuerl doesn’t mention is employee benefits – the actual crux of the Archdiocese’s displeasure with the legislation. The Archbishop writes, “We are asking that new language be developed that more fairly balances different interests – those of the city to redefine marriage and those of faith groups so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs.” It is apparently a deeply held religious teaching and belief that same-sex partners of employees of the Catholic Church not receive benefits.

What Wuerl also doesn’t mention is that the Archdiocese’s judgment is consistent with the Manhattan Declaration, an ecumenical agreement between conservative Christian leaders to rally in their opposition to abortion and teh gay. Wuerl was the first to sign the document, which calls for Christians to practice civil disobedience to protest liberal social laws. Render unto Caesar, bitches!

Of course, what Wuerl doesn’t need to say is why he is writing an editorial instead of, say, a letter. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has said that she hopes to find a solution that does not involve intervention by her peers in Congress – which is probably conservatives’ last best hope for preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage in the District. And D.C. Council members David A. Catania and Phil Mendelson have sent Wuerl letters noting a compromise policy practiced at Georgetown University. Wuerl doesn’t mention any specific change to the legislation that his editorial would seem to call for (“We are asking that new language be developed”). But hey, the Washington Post sure is read by a lot of people in Congress who could do something about it.

What Wuerl also also doesn’t mention is teh gay aliens. What happens if the Church finds extraterrestrials and they are totally gay?

– Kriston Capps

To read Mark Levine’s Washington Post rebuttal to Archbishop Wuerl, click here.

Levine’s commentary is entitled, incidentally, “A Publicly Funded Charity Should Serve the Public,” which, when you think about it, could be a politer way of expressing Capps’ whole “rendering unto Caesar” thing!


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
D.C. Council Calls Archdiocese’s Bluff
First They Take Manhattan
Timothy Kincaid Reviews the “Manhattan Declaration”

Timothy Kincaid Reviews the "Manhattan Declaration"

Over at the always informative and insightful Box Turtle Bulletin, Timothy Kincaid (right) shares his thoughts on the “Manhattan Declaration” – a manifesto issued by a broad coalition of Christian social conservative activists, including Archbishop John Nienstedt of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

Following are highlights from Kincaid’s review.

_____________________________________

A group of conservative Christians released today their manifesto of their agreement across lines of faith and tradition. Entitled Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, this document lays out areas in which the signatories declare commonality of purpose.

First, let us say what this document is not. It is not, as the NY Times described it, a situation in which “Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues”. Indeed, this is but a segment of Christian thought, claiming the mantle of Christian history and tradition but excluding broad segments of the faith.

One need only glance at the signatories to know the nature of the alliance. Present are some who are well known names in the political culture wars who have long striven to impose their religious views by force of law on the unbelievers: Dr. James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Gary Bauer, and Tony Perkins. Some are religious leaders who have been recently shifting their realm of influence away from faith towards secular domination: Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Albert Mohler, and Jonathan Falwell.

But this is not just broadly social conservatives. There is, instead, a concentration of those who focus on “opposing the homosexual agenda”. There are a few religious activists who seem dedicated and committed (obsessed, one might think) to fighting equality for gay people: Ken Hutcherson, Bishop Harry Jackson, and Jim Garlow. And then, inexplicably, some who are not religious leaders at all but social activists whose primary occupation is in seeking the political institutionalizing of inequality to gay people: Maggie Gallagher, Frank Schubert, and William Donohue.

. . . While this alliance is one that does not reflect the face of Christianity, it also is not a declaration of a new-found position of agreement based on shared Christian teaching and ideology. There is no mention of shared faith in creeds or teachings, no virgin birth, no resurrection, no divine redemption.

Rather, this is a statement of political purpose by an alliance of socially conservative activist who oppose abortion and marriage equality. Indeed, although the document speaks in lofty terms of Christian tradition and religious freedom, the only commitments it makes are to oppose legal abortion (some day down the road) and the immediate attack on the ability of gay people to avail themselves of civil equality.

This is, in short a political alliance. It is a pact and a threat.

While on the face of it, this manifesto purports to be a rededication to fight two specific political issues, I think that this is but surface dressing for a deeper meaning.

This is not a war over civil marriage definition – nor, indeed, has that ever been the real motivation behind anti-gay marriage drives. Rather, this is a war over religious domination, a fight over who is “really a Christian” and an effort on the part of a long-suffering religious subset to spite those who have long had what they coveted.

Political power in the United States had long been in the hands of what is now called Mainline Christianity. Our presidents have included over a dozen Episcopalians (as is the National Cathedral), about ten Presbyterians, with most of the rest being Methodists, Unitarians, Disciples of Christ, and Quakers.

There has been exactly one Catholic. There have been four Baptists, of whom the two Southern Baptists were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There have been no Pentecostals and no members of mega-Churches. In fact, though some Republican presidents have been religious and conservative, there has never been a President of the United States that was both denominationally and ideologically within the fold represented by the signatories of this Manhattan Declaration.

And now they want theirs. And, not content at the rise of their own political power, they will not be happy unless they can diminish those denominations whom they seek to replace.

. . . The Manhattan document does not in any place refer to same-sex relationships without simultaneously mentioning multiple-party relationships. This will no doubt translate to a new commitment on the part of the signatories to try and tie the two together in their political campaigns.

Frankly, I wish them godspeed in that decision. Americans have, I believe, moved beyond the point in which gay couples are viewed as identical to polygamists.

. . . There are, as we all know, no requirements for any churches or ministers to act contrary to their faith. We have long since debunked their claims of oppression and shown them to be nothing more than a retraction of special privilege when the religious groups in question wanted to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate against gay taxpayers. There are no instances in their recitation in which religious groups were forced to compromise in any areas of faith in the administration of their own funds or time.

That is of no consequence. Liars lie. We expect the morally bankrupt to behave without integrity.

But what I think we can anticipate, based on their conclusion, is a concerted effort at political stuntery. A dedication to dishonesty. And an ongoing campaign of lies.

As a Christian, it distresses me to see the name of my faith and the mantle of its history usurped by those who have no respect for its greater principles but instead gleefully glom onto its darker bloody history. Rather than exalt in the liberties that have evolved from Christian thought, they seek to equate the faith with its most prejudicial, superstitious, exclusionary and dictatorial moments.

But perhaps something good may come of this.

It is possible that out of this declaration of war, the moderate and liberal branches of the faith may find common cause, if nothing else in defense of their own good name. Perhaps they will decide that they have a purpose and meaning in modern America and will let go of residual guilt and angst and take up the mantle of protector of the oppressed and champion of justice and mercy.

To read Timothy Kincaid’s “A Review of the Manhattan Declaration” in its entirety, click here.


See also the previous Wild Reed post:
First They Take Manhattan
D.C. Council Calls Archdiocese’s Bluff

Recommended Off-site Links:
The Manhattan Declaration – Full text and commentary at GoodAsYou.org.
The D.C. Catholic Church’s Red Herring - Nancy Polikoff (The Bilerico Project, November 15, 2009).
The New GLBT Pope Problem - Wayne Besen (TruthWinsOut.org, November 23, 2009).
Manhattan Declaration of Religious Traditionalism – Andrew Gern (Episcopal Café, November 20, 2009).
Statement of Conscience: Just Give Us the Money - Bruce Garrett (TruthWinsOut.org, November 20, 2009).
Can a Culture War Manifesto Reach a New Generation of Evangelicals and Catholics? - Dan Gilgoff (U.S. News and World Report, November 20, 2009).
A “Hierarchy of Issues”? - Thom Curnutte (Ad Dominum, November 20, 2009).
Two Catholic Bishops, Conscience, and the Common Good - Paula Ruddy (The Progressive Catholic Voice, June 14, 2009).

Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 3)

This is the third and final installment of the special Wild Reed series featuring excerpts from my friend Robert Caruso’s recently-released book, The Old Catholic Church: Understanding the Origin, Essence, and Theology of a Church that is Unknown and Misunderstood by Many in North America.

This particular excerpt examines the relationship between the Anglican Communion and Old Catholicism – first by looking at the Bonn Conference of 1874 and the Bonn Agreement of 1931, and then the convergence that is presently occurring between the Episcopal Church (USA) and Old Catholicism.

(NOTE: To start at the beginning of this series, click here.)

_________________________________________

From its inception, the Union of Utrecht re-examined its Catholic identity apart from seeking any kind of validation from the Roman communion. This offered a sense of clarity and freedom for the Union of Utrecht to describe its Catholicity apart from Rome, and further opened the doors toward unity with other local-universal churches throughout the world, e.g., the Anglican Communion.

The ever-flourishing ecumenical relationship between the Union of Utrecht and the Anglican Communion in the late nineteenth-century reached a new plateau at the Old Catholic Union Conference at Bonn, Germany in 1874. The Old Catholic leaders convoked this conference “. . . specially for the purpose of promoting reunion, these were informal and unofficial conferences of theologians from various churches but primarily Anglican and Old Catholic.”* The Bonn conference of 1874 should not be underestimated or overlooked because it is at this meeting that the Old Catholics and Anglicans become theologically aware of each other and their shared existence as local-universal churches.

The fourteen theological theses’ of agreement (known as the Bonn Theses of 1874) were produced at this conference, offering for the first time written evidence of a shared consensus between Old Catholic and Anglican theologians on a variety of general theological topics. Systematically speaking, the Bonn theses delineates Anglican and Old Catholic theological agreement in the following areas of revelation: in both scripture and tradition as possessing equal authority in the life of the Church (Bonn 1874, no. 1-3, and 9), sacramentology (Bonn 1874, no. 8, and 11), justification and salvation (Bonn 1874, no 5-7, and 12), and the Eucharistic ecclesiology of the local-universal church (Bonn 1874, no. 4, 8b, 9b, 10, 13-14).

. . . The Bonn theses of 1874 provided the theological room necessary for Old Catholic and Anglican theologians to focus intently on one another’s ecclesiology, which ultimately led to the mutual recognition of standards of communion as expressed in the 1931 Bonn Agreement. . . . Three principles form the Bonn Agreement. They are doctrinal unity, mutual recognition, and independent cooperation..

. . . [A]n ecclesiological convergence is occurring at this present time in history between Anglicans and Old Catholics in ways never before seen. Here on the local level we can begin to observe a lived early church Eucharistic ecclesiology surfacing in various dioceses in the Episcopal Church (USA). The Episcopal Church is beginning to resemble the Old Catholic Church, and the Old Catholic Church is beginning to resemble the Anglican Communion. In other words, what we are observing in contemporary history is the transformation of two local-universal church communions in the West, converging with each other ecclesiologically and sharing with each other the eseential Eucharistic character of communion and common mission in becoming the Catholic Church envisioned by early church theologians like St. Irenaeus, among others.

There is a place for “Vatican II” Catholics in the Old Catholic faith! There is a place where you can celebrate your sacramental life as a Catholic seeking unity in diversity in the Old Catholic faith!

Independent Old Catholics need to realize that the Eucharistic charisma of Old Catholicism is alive and well in the greater communion of the Episcopal Church, and in time we will need to find ways of fostering friendships with clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church.

I firmly believe that no Old Catholic local church will ever exist in the U.S. without it being intimately related with the Episcopal Church (USA). We must remember that the Union of Utrecht and the Episcopal Church (USA) are in communion with each other, and endeavor to be one church. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Utrecht will never establish opposing dioceses in the U.S. against the Episcopal Church (USA). If we Old Catholics, living in the Diaspora of the U.S., truly want to be at home with our faith and be at peace with God and each other, then we must actively seek fellowship with the Episcopal Church (USA) on the local level any way we possibly can.

In short, Anglicans and Old Catholics are currently in the process of converging with one another ecclesiologically on the academic and local/practical levels of the church. The engagement that occurred over seventy years at Bonn between Anglicans and Old Catholics is coming to an end, and the marriage banquet of authentic communion centered in hospitality is getter closer at hand.

* Wright, J. Robert, “Anglican and Old Catholic Theology Compared” in Old Catholics and Anglican, 125.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 1)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 2)
• Robert Caruso’s Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism
• The Old Catholic Church: Catholicism Beyond Rome - An interview with Robert Caruso.
• The Declaration of Utrecht
• Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral

Let's Hear a Big 'Woo' for The Saturday Show . . .

Since it’s been rather serious around here lately I thought I’d lighten things up with a little humor!

And so tonight for some comic relief I present a wonderful clip from that venerable Australian comedy show, Fast Forward. This particular video highlights Gina Riley’s variety show hostess character, Eleanor LaGore, as she celebrates 20 years of The Saturday Show. Enjoy!



For more laughs at The Wild Reed see:
A Humorous Look at Internalized Homophobia
Did Ya Hear About Our John?
One Out of Ten
A Beer Ad with a Difference
A Car Ad with a Difference
Oops!
A Simple Matter of Logic, Really

Recommended Off-site Link:
Gina Riley as Corralee Hollow

First They Take Manhattan

. . . with a wave of toxic religious traditionalism!

I read today that Archbishop John Nienstedt of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis is one of the signatories of the “The Manhattan Declaration” - a manifesto that, as Andrew Gerns notes, “links the preservation of religious freedom to the need for a government ban on all abortions and any sort of same sex marriage.”



Reports the Associated Press:

The 4,700-word document, called “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” sounds familiar themes from political and social debates over the health care overhaul and gay marriage battles.

While acknowledging that “Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage,” the group rejects same-sex marriage. The declaration states that opening a legal door for gay marriage would do the same for “polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships....”

What nonsense. And as rightly observed by the folks over at AsGoodAsYou.org:

They have framed [polygamy and homosexuality] as if the two concepts are one and the same, for obvious tactical reasons. But honestly, we’d argue that this actually does damage to their cause, as the vast majority of Americans have zero trouble seeing the flaw in the logic.

Yes, indeed. It’s as flawed as the science in a Roland Emmerich movie!




Meanwhile, the New York Times notes:

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples....

...The document was written by Mr. (Chuck) Colson; Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, who is Catholic; and the Rev. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, an evangelical interdenominational school on the campus of Samford University, in Birmingham, Ala.

Below is an excerpt from Andrew Gern’s insightful commentary on “The Manhattan Declaration.” I particularly appreciate his concluding remarks (Archbishop Nienstedt, take note!): “The signatories not only want to preserve the right to teach and discriminate within their own institutions but they want the government to give them a special place in the public sphere so that their private scruples become public policy. They want their own freedom of religion to be protected at the expense of other peoples freedom of conscience.”

Now that, for a liberal democracy such as ours, is a disaster. And quite frankly, it’s a disaster for authentic Catholicism as well. For in its demonizing of gay people, this declaration disgracefully spits in the face of God’s loving presence in these people’s lives and relationships.

My only consolation is that, like those disaster movies that are trundled out every few years, this declaration will similarly (and rightly) be viewed as overblown, out of touch with real life, and readily disposable.

_________________________________

The document does some cite examples where conservative churches have bumped up against anti-discrimination statues in matters of employment, public accommodation, client access or delivery of services.

We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.

They cite the example of the controversy in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, a seaside resort within the township of Neptune, which had been operating as township in the State of New Jersey for many years. The controversy the document cites is not the simple matter of the State trying to force a church into holding same-sex civil union ceremonies, but the case of a private association that manages a public accommodation that heretofore did not require a religious test or limitation to use the facility denying a same-sex couple from using it for a civil union ceremony. No matter where one stands on the issue of same-sex marriage, the question is far from a simple case of religious (or non-religious) coercion that the writers of the document portray.

In the case of Catholics in Massachusetts getting out of the adoption business because they would not field same-sex clients, the writers ignore the fact that the agencies own board and most employees disagreed with the Catholic hierarchy on this issue and had developed a process that met both the terms of state law and church teaching. As we are seeing in Washington, DC, and in the current health-care bill before congress, this kind of compromise is not enough.

Those who signed this statement say that they are fearful that even teaching that same-sex marriage is wrong could get them arrested, accused of “hate-crimes.” This was put to the test this week when some Christian pastors tried to provoke their own arrest by publicly saying unkind and harsh words against homosexuals on the steps of the Justice Department. No one was arrested. The organizers forgot that to be arrested for a hate-crime, one must commit or plan to commit, an actual crime. According to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post,

The evangelical activists had been hoping to provoke arrest, because, as organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission put it, “we’d have standing to challenge the law.” But their prayers were not answered. Nobody was arrested, which wasn’t surprising: To run afoul of the new law, you need to “plan or prepare for an act of physical violence” or “incite an imminent act of physical violence.”

The manifesto makes much of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, who wrote from a Birmingham jail to mainly white pastors who claimed sympathy with civil rights but refused to commit to the struggle, citing his understanding of civil disobedience as the basis for their proposed resistance. What the writers do not acknowledge, nor repent of, is the fact that many of these same traditions and scriptural arguments were used then to justify state-sanctioned racism and violent resistance to integration.

The Manhattan Declaration defines the struggle to maintain state-sanctioned laws that promote discrimination and limit abortions in terms of religious freedom. The signatories not only want to preserve the right to teach and discriminate within their own institutions but they want the power of government to give them a special place in the public sphere so that their private scruples become public policy. They want their own freedom of religion to be protected at the expense of other peoples freedom of conscience.




Recommended Off-site Links:
The Manhattan Declaration – Full text and commentary at GoodAsYou.org.
Manhattan Declaration of Religious Traditionalism – Andrew Gern (Episcopal Café, November 20, 2009).
Statement of Conscience: Just Give Us the Money - Bruce Garrett (TruthWinsOut.org, November 20, 2009).
Can a Culture War Manifesto Reach a New Generation of Evangelicals and Catholics? - Dan Gilgoff (U.S. News and World Report, November 20, 2009).
A “Hierarchy of Issues”? - Thom Curnutte (Ad Dominum, November 20, 2009).
Two Catholic Bishops, Conscience, and the Common Good - Paula Ruddy (The Progressive Catholic Voice, June 14, 2009).

Outing Hypocrisy

.

The media release below was issued Wednesday by ChurchOuting.org.

I should say from the start that I support efforts to out the hypocrisy of those Roman Catholic bishops and priests who live secretive gay lives while at the same time either publicly support the official anti-gay rhetoric and efforts of the church’s clerical leadership to strip gay people of civil rights protections, or remain silent in the face of such un-Christlike behavior. Indeed, I resonate with ChurchOuting.org’s founder Phil Attey’s hope that this campaign in Washington, D.C., will “inspire similar campaigns in every archdiocese across the country.”

_____________________________________

ChurchOuting.org Launched to Expose
Hypocrisy in the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington

WASHINGTON, DC – A new local Internet and social media campaign was launched today in response to increasing anti-gay attacks by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington and to a 57 page Pastoral Letter, which was passed today by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) affirming the national church leadership’s opposition to recognition of civil marriage between same sex couples.

ChurchOuting.org is a clearinghouse for reports of priests who are openly gay men in social settings yet professionally closeted in their parishes. The campaign will also accept reports of heterosexual priests who are involved in romantic or sexual relationships, yet support the Archbishop’s efforts to harm lesbian and gay families.

“Their silence is criminal,” said Phil Attey, founder of ChurchOuting.org. “The increasing anti-gay attacks by the Archbishop and the USCCB not only harm gay and lesbian families seeking civil marriage recognition, but perpetuate the cycle of spiritual and emotional abuse that has harmed countless LGBT Catholic youth for generations.”

ChurchOuting.org provides an easy to use form to privately report priests in the Archdiocese who engage in romantic or sexual relationships, including detailed stories if available. Reports, once verified, will be used to pressure reported priests to vocally oppose the leadership’s anti-gay efforts, and ultimately to pressure the Archbishop to stop his anti-gay efforts here in Washington.

The ChurchOuting.org campaign was greatly inspired by the work of the Survivors Network of those Sexually Abused by Priests (SNAP), which emerged to stop the cycle of sexual abuse in Catholic parishes across the country. ChurchOuting.org plans to use similar strategies, while taking full advantage of new social media tools like Facebook and Twitter.

“I expect community response to this campaign to be overwhelming,” says Attey, who hopes once successful in Washington, DC, ChurchOuting.org will inspire similar campaigns in every archdiocese across the country. “The Church hierarchy has crossed the line in diverting the mission of the church from helping the poor and caring for the sick to waging political campaigns to strip LGBT citizens of civil rights protections. We can no longer remain silent while this happens. Nor can our parish priests.”


Recommended Off-site Links:
ChurchOuting.org
It Was Only a Matter of Time – The Backlash Begins - Colleen Kochlivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, November 19, 2009).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Hypocrisy, Ignorance, Promiscuity, and the Love That is the Center of Catholic Christianity
Introspection: The Remedy for Hypocrisy
What the Republican Leadership and the Catholic Hierarchy Have in Common
A Rich Laugh Fit for a Dame
A Humorous Look at Internalized Homophobia
Knowing What to Do, Knowing Why to Stay

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Courage

.

. . . the Courage apostolate, that is.

This past Tuesday evening, approximately 50 people gathered at St. Martin’s Table Restaurant and Bookstore in Minneapolis for an educational forum hosted by the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) and entitled “Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable: The Catholic Church, Homosexuality, and Reparative Therapy.”

As many Wild Reed readers would know, this event and the issues it focused upon were the subject of a (rather inadequate) piece in Tuesday’s Star Tribune. (To read this article, along with my corrections and clarifications, click here.)

I should also say that I’ve spoken to Jeff Strickler, the author of this particular article, and he has assured me that a correction will be published in Saturday’s edition of the Star Tribune. This correction will focus on the article’s quoting of me as saying that Retired Archbishop Harry Flynn had “came to us” (i.e., CPCSM) in the late-1990s and asked the organization to “serve as resource people for the church.” What I actually said was that in the mid-1990s the Archdiocese, meaning the Archdiocesan office known as Catholic Education and Formation Ministries (CEFM) had approached CPCSM, an independent, grassroots coalition, and requested that it share its experience and expertise in ministry with LGBT people.”


Why we gathered

So with that matter cleared up, I’d like to share a little about Tuesday night’s event, starting with why exactly CPCSM felt compelled to host this forum in the first place.

It’s important to know that almost 30 years ago Archbishop John Roach called for “competent and compassionate pastoral ministry” for LGBT persons and their families within the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis (Catholic Bulletin, September 21, 1991). This ministry was subsequently built and maintained through the dedicated and tireless efforts of CPCSM leaders in cooperation with parishes and schools of the Archdiocese. Sadly, under subsequent archbishops we’ve witnessed such ministry efforts undermined and usurped by rigid doctrinal fundamentalism and pseudo-science discredited by all mainstream professional mental health and medical associations.

Over the past six years the Archdiocese has adopted and advocated the Courage Apostolate of the Catholic Church as the only pastoral program that it recommends for Catholic gay men and lesbians (whom Courage prefers to label with the pseudo-scientific term of [men and women who have] “same-sex attractions”). (See Rev. Jim Livingston’s letter of 2-2-09 to all priests and deacons of the local Archdiocese.)

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

At our November 17 forum at St. Martin’s Table, we heard from two speakers who shared their perspectives on this situation and offered steps that can be taken to hold the Courage Apostolate accountable – both locally and nationally –for its support of reparative therapy.

The evening started with a delicious soup supper provided by the good folks at St. Martin’s Table. Although CPCSM has utilized the space at St. Martin’s Table many times in the past (see, for example, here), this was the first time we worked with the restaurant component of the establishment and served a meal. We’ll definitely be doing it again!

Our actual program got underway at 6:30 with my welcoming and introduction of our two speakers – Philip Lowe, Jr., and Dr. Simon Rosser, Ph.D.

Above (from left): CPCSM executive coordinator Michael Bayly;
Philip Lowe. Jr.; Dr. Simon Rosser; & CPCSM co-founder David McCaffrey.

A survivor’s story

Philip shared his experiences within the local chapter of Courage (known as Faith in Action in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis). Philip refers to Courage as “the ex-gay ministry of the Roman Catholic church,” and considers himself a “survivor” of this ministry. He was a member of the apostolate for 15 months before leaving it last year.

He noted that a typical Courage meeting takes place on a Friday night, at an undisclosed location known only to Courage members. One or two priests facilitate the meeting, which begin with a prayer followed by the reading of the five goals of Courage. Then the facilitator asks, “How has Courage helped you during this past week?”, and each person takes turns talking about their struggles with chastity. Those who attend Courage are told that to be a good Catholic they must “carry the cross” of their same-sex attractions and do everything possible to avoid romantic or sexual contact with members of the same sex.

“At Courage meetings we were told to avoid any places of temptation that might exist,” said Philip. Such places include malls, parks, bars, athletic centers or “any where that might be a problem for us.” Courage members are also urged to avoid any and all levels of “inappropriate intimacy” that could lead us to any kind of sexual or romantic intimacy with the same sex. “Disinterested friendships” with people of the same sex, however, are supported.

Much of what Philip shared on Tuesday night has been documented in a powerful testimony he recently wrote for Beyond Ex-Gay, an “online community for those who have survived ex-gay experiences.” Following are some excerpts from Philip’s testimony.

During my time in Courage my attitudes towards myself, my family and others became very bad. The more I avoided intimacy, the more I hungered for intimacy. . . . I was hungering to be loved, but not allowing myself to experience love. I eventually started working with an ex-gay therapist and even a spiritual director. In both cases, the more I attempted to flee being gay, the more being gay smacked me in the face. When meeting with my therapist and/or spiritual director, I would be told that either it was because of all the rejection I had experienced or because I did not know how to manage intimacy with others appropriately.

. . . At my last Courage meeting one of the guys there made the remark that he was beginning to become discouraged by the fact that because he was a man who had same-sex attraction and was probably not going to overcome it any time soon, that he would never get married or have children.

There is a closeted Lutheran minister who attended Courage meetings to help him deal with his homosexuality. During the meeting that minister made a comment to the man who had [shared] the concern about never being able to marry or have children because of his sexual orientation. [The Lutheran minister told] him that there are lots of gay men who are in heterosexual marriages and that he saw nothing wrong with him wanting to get married to a woman and have children, even though he is gay. That comment made me so angry because I remembered [during] my days of being out . . . calling in on many phone date lines and hearing about the many bi/married men who just could not tell their wives about their sexual orientation and how painful that was for them. And here was a Christian minister encouraging this young man to marry with a mask over his face about who he is and what he is about.

. . . I started coming out all over again. I no longer went to Courage meetings, and I started making friends in the gay community again. I started going back to my old therapist who encouraged me to be a healthy gay man, and to seek out healthy relationships. The more I began to accept myself all over again, the better I felt. Though I was still struggling with the anger I experienced from Courage . . . I was becoming happier and finding a better sense of myself, because I was again accepting myself as I am, not as Courage thought I should be.

On February 7th of 2009, just two days after my 40th Birthday, I met Jason and we fell in love. My partner Jason’s life has also been affected by the religious right, but in a different way. But we have both been able to talk about our experiences and find companionship and intimacy with each other in a very healthy way. Since meeting Jason, we have both started attending a near by Episcopal Cathedral, where LGBT people are welcomed and affirmed.

To read Philip’s testimony in its entirety, click here.




Courage = homo-negativity = poor emotional and sexual health

The second presenter at CPCSM’s “Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable” forum was internationally-renowned researcher Dr. Simon Rosser of the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. Simon shared a wealth of information concerning the impact on emotional, physical and sexual well-being as the result of organizations, such as Courage, that convey and foster homo-negativity (i.e., negative attitudes towards homosexuality).

I’ll write more about Simon’s presentation at a later date. For now I just want to share what he said about an important University of Minnesota study that he oversaw. This study, the results of which were first published in the September 2008 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Homosexuality, shows that the degree of internalized homo-negativity among homosexual men is what predicts poor mental and sexual health – not the degree of homosexuality.

According to Simon, the results of this study help inform the debate of whether or not being homosexual is healthy.

“This particular study is a missing link in our understanding of the relationship between sexuality and health,” he says. “It provides new evidence that negative attitudes towards homosexuality, not homosexuality itself, are associated with both poorer mental and sexual health outcomes seen in sexual minorities. Conversely, positive attitudes towards homosexuality are associated with better mental and sexual health.”



Above: Dr. Simon highlights and discusses the four pastoral approaches to counseling on homosexuality.

Right: With my friend Freeman Wicklund.

Above: Philip Lowe chats with longtime CPCSM supporter Gerry Sell.

Above: Dr. Simon Rosser and Retired Lutheran Bishop Lowell Erdahl.
To read Lowell’s inspiring reflection, “Unlearning the Things
That Used to Be Obvious,” click here.

Taking action

After Philip and Simon made their presentations, I spoke on behalf of CPCSM and urged all in attendance to contact Courage and express their deep concern about our Church being linked to disreputable psychological theories and practices.

In particular, CPCSM is asking people to consider requesting, politely yet firmly, that Courage:

1) Publicly refute the pseudo-science of reparative therapy advocated by NARTH and other “ex-gay” groups.

2) Remove from its website links to any and all organizations offering such therapy.

3) Commit to actively dissuading its members from pursuing such therapy.

4) Educate its leadership and members on what the mainstream psychological establishment says about homosexuality and the impact of homo-negativity on psychological health, and be open to allowing reputable psychological knowledge to inform Catholic theology of human sexuality.

Courage’s central office is located in New York City. Fr. Paul Check serves as director of the apostolate in the U.S.

Courage
c/o Church of St John The Baptist
210 West 31st Street
New York NY 10001

E-mail: NYCourage@aol.com
Phone: (212) 268-1010
Fax: (212) 268-7150

Local chapters of Courage exist in various dioceses. Here in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, Courage goes by the name of Faith in Action. The Office of Marriage, Family, and Life sponsors the Faith in Action program. Kathy Laird heads this office.

Faith in Action
c/o Office of Marriage, Family, and Life
328 W. Kellog Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102

E-mail: spmmfl@archspm.org
Phone: 651-291-4488 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 651-291-4488 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or 651-291-4438

After making contact with Courage/Faith in Action, please consider sharing with CPCSM how your conversation went by e-mailing us at cpcsmmail@gmail.com or mbayly1965@yahoo.com. Thanks.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable
The Cowardice of Courage
It's Official: APA Opposes "Reparative Therapy"
The Continuum Just Shrank
“Curing” Homosexuality
Debunking NARTH (Part I)
Debunking NARTH (Part II)
What Scientists in the UK Are Saying About Homosexuality
The Real Meaning of Courage
The Many Forms of Courage (Part I)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part II)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part III)
Beyond Courage

Steve Chapman: "Time is On the Side of Gay Marriage"

Nationally-syndicated columnist Steve Chapman’s latest commentary was published today in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In it he gives facts and figures to support a contention that I and others have long held: Time is on the side of gay marriage.

“The heaviest opposition [to gay marriage]” writes Chapman, “comes from people over 65. Among those under 30, by contrast, supporters predominate – and by a hefty 58-to-37 percent margin. . . . Opposition to gay marriage is shrinking. In 1996, 65 percent took a negative view. Since then, support has fallen by about one percentage point a year. Put another way, one out of every eight Americans has gone from opposing the concept to endorsing it”

For many people, much of their resistance to the idea of gay marriage is centered simply on the word “marriage.”

“It’s not the idea of treating gay couples equally that bothers most Americans,” says Chapman. “It’s the name of the legal arrangement. Call same-sex marriage by another term – civil union, domestic partnership, everything-but-marriage, Qualcomm Stadium, Death Cab for Cutie – and they’re fine with it.”

Accordingly, much of Chapman’s commentary focuses on “the advantage of [the] bashful euphemism” of “domestic partnership.” He maintains that this term “accommodates gays on the most important issues related to family – legal recognition and rights, protection for children, access to pension and insurance benefits – while avoiding the weighty symbolism of calling this arrangement by a name that carries religious connotations.”

“In time, though,” Chapman contends, “it will be apparent that granting same-sex couples substantive equality has none of the calamitous consequences imagined by gay-rights opponents. At that point, some of them will find themselves saying: Tell me again why we don’t let them get married?”

I must admit I can see the sense of this strategy. It’s pragmatic in that it takes into consideration the realities of the day while remaining focused on long-term success. Of course, such a strategy can be difficult for some in our “I want it, and I want it now!” culture.

Also, perhaps another reason why I find it appealing is that, personally, I’m not particularly, er, married to the term “marriage.” The concept, yes, but not necessarily the word, especially if it’s simply the use of this word that (for now) is preventing gay people from actually receiving all the rights and responsibilities of marriage (as they are, according to Chapman, in Washington, D.C. under the term “domestic partnership”).

I have friends who, as Chapman notes, “reject anything short of full access to marriage as a disgraceful revival of the old ‘separate but equal’ policy – which was anything but equal for African-Americans.”

Chapman response is, again, a pragmatic one: “You don’t get across a broad river in a single leap. You get there by building a bridge that allows you to travel across one step at a time.”

I'd be interested to hear what readers of The Wild Reed think of all this.

Following is Chapman’s commentary in its entirety.

____________________________________

The Ground is Shifting
on Same-Sex Unions

By Steve Chapman

Star Tribune
November 18, 2009

Opponents of same-sex marriage waxed triumphant recently when voters in Maine rejected a measure allowing gays to wed. Maggie Gallagher, head of the National Organization for Marriage, crowed, “This victory in Maine interrupts the cultural narrative that was being manufactured, that somehow American opinion is shifting on the gay marriage issue.”

But she and her allies are the political equivalent of a Minnesota Vikings fan, gazing upon Brett Favre’s middle-aged gridiron wizardry. They had better enjoy it now, because it’s not going to last.

What got overlooked on Election Day was the victory for gay rights on the other coast, in Washington state – where the electorate extended to homosexual couples all the privileges and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexual couples. That measure, known as “everything but marriage,” passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Why did it succeed while the initiative in Maine failed? Simple: Washington calls this new option “domestic partnership” rather than “marriage.”

As it turns out, it’s not the idea of treating gay couples equally that bothers most Americans. It’s the name of the legal arrangement. Call same-sex marriage by another term – civil union, domestic partnership, everything-but-marriage, Qualcomm Stadium, Death Cab for Cutie – and they’re fine with it.

Traditionalists take heart that same-sex marriage has lost every time it’s been on the ballot, and that a decisive majority of the public rejects it. The latest poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds 53 percent of Americans are against, with 39 percent in favor.

But anyone who denies that “American opinion is shifting” inhabits a fool’s paradise, whose walls are sagging noticeably. Opposition to gay marriage is shrinking. In 1996, 65 percent took a negative view. Since then, support has fallen by about one percentage point a year. Put another way, one out of every eight Americans has gone from opposing the concept to endorsing it.

Time is on the side of gay marriage. The heaviest opposition comes from people over 65. Among those under 30, by contrast, supporters predominate – and by a hefty 58-to-37 percent margin.

The opponents of same-sex matrimony are in ever-worsening straits. Civil unions and domestic partnerships, which provide some or most of the accouterments of marriage, have been provided to gay couples in nine states and the District of Columbia, according to Lambda Legal. Once radical, these are seen today as the sensible compromise between giving gays the right to sacred matrimony and giving them a sharp stick in the eye.

Offered a middle-of-the-road option between Perez Hilton and Pat Robertson, Americans have flocked to it. Eight years ago, Pew says, only 45 percent were in favor of civil unions. Today, it’s 57 percent.

Washingtonians approved the most expansive version, and they knew exactly what they were doing. The ballot said, “This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.”

Why is it not a marriage? Not because it is legally different under Washington state law, but because – well, because it is not called marriage. But it’s an identical twin.

The advantage of this bashful euphemism is that it accommodates gays on the most important issues related to family – legal recognition and rights, protection for children, access to pension and insurance benefits – while avoiding the weighty symbolism of calling this arrangement by a name that carries religious connotations.

In time, though, it will be apparent that granting same-sex couples substantive equality has none of the calamitous consequences imagined by gay-rights opponents. At that point, some of them will find themselves saying: Tell me again why we don’t let them get married?

Many gay-rights advocates reject anything short of full access to marriage as a disgraceful revival of the old “separate but equal” policy – which was anything but equal for African-Americans. But you don’t get across a broad river in a single leap. You get there by building a bridge that allows you to travel across one step at a time.

As a destination, civil unions leave a lot to be desired. But as an avenue, they’re hard to beat.

Steve Chapman’s column is distributed by Creators Syndicate.


While Googling for images of same-sex marriage I found the following cartoons which I thought I’d share.







See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Dr. Erik Steele and the “Naked Truth of Same-Sex Marriage”
The Same People
John Corvino on the “Always and Everywhere” Argument
Patrick Ryan on the “Defense of Traditional Marriage” Argument
The Changing Face of “Traditional Marriage”
Competent Parenting Doesn’t Require “Traditional Marriage”
What Straights Can Learn from Gay Marriage
A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage
On Civil Unions and Christian Tradition