The Wild Reed

My Response to Archbishop Flynn

2009-11-25T23:17:00.000-08:00

A version* of the following letter was published in today’s Star Tribune.

_________________________________

Catholic Church and Gays

There was a time when they worked together

Retired Catholic Archbishop Harry Flynn takes both myself and the Star Tribune to task for “statements and actions attributed” to him in the Nov. 17 article “Gays reject church’s attempts to ‘cure’ them.”

Flynn labels as “pure fabrication” the claim attributed to me that he personally approached the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) in the late-1990s and requested that it be a resource for the archdiocese. I regret such a claim was printed but nevertheless maintain I was misquoted.

I believe what I said was that throughout the 1980s and ’90s CPCSM, an independent grassroots coalition, worked with various parishes and archdiocesan agencies and was approached in 1995 by the archdiocesan Education Administration Office – then called Catholic Education and Formation Ministries (CEFM) – to share its experience and expertise in ministry with gay people in designing and implementing a Safe Schools Initiative for Catholic high schools. A need for competent and compassionate ministry with gay youth in Catholic high schools had been identified by school administrators and brought to the attention of the head of CEFM. Archbishop Flynn was aware that CEFM had approached and was working with CPCSM. This collaboration took place in the mid-late 1990s.

I empathize with Archbishop Flynn’s annoyance at having statements wrongly attributed to him, but I am also disappointed that he did not take this as an opportunity to set the record straight and acknowledge that there was a time when the archdiocese, although not the Archbishop himself, collaborated with CPCSM.

Michael Bayly
Executive Coordinator, CPCSM

* I actually submitted two versions of the same letter to the Star Tribune. One was slightly longer and more detailed (see above) than the other. Perhaps not surprisingly, the paper chose to print the shorter version (which can be viewed here).

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
For the Record

For the Record

2009-11-25T07:00:00.000-08:00

One of the most disappointing aspects of Retired Archbishop Harry Flynn’s letter in yesterday’s Star Tribune was its complete denial of the shared history of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis and the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM). I sense from this that at any official level within the archdiocese, even the idea of any type of past collaboration between the two entities is to be either dismissed or ignored.

Flynn, therefore, is understandable peeved by the claim that he personally approached CPCSM in the late-1990s and invited the group to serve as a resource for the archdiocese. He did not.

I, in turn, am peeved that the November 17 Star Tribune article that contained this claim attributed it to me as executive coordinator of CPCSM.

Of course, it’s a waste of time arguing about this particular point. I am sure that I made no such claim during my interview with the writer of the article, and apparently the archbishop is sure that I did – seemingly as part of some nefarious gay agenda aimed at manipulating the media.

By focusing solely on this claim, however, attention is diverted from two important realities. The first is that the Courage apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church supports and relies on the pseudo-science of NARTH – an organization that endorses “reparative therapy” for gay people. This type of therapy has been discredited by all mainstream professional mental health and medical associations. This was actually the primary focus of the Star Tribune article of November 17.

The second important fact that is rather conveniently ignored is that the archdiocese, albeit in a limited capacity, did indeed work with CPCSM in the 1990s during Flynn’s tenure. I can only surmise that this is of deep embarrassment to both Flynn and the current leadership of the archdiocese. This current leadership, headed by Archbishop John Nienstedt, would have it that no official leader within the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis ever “supported, endorsed or recognized CPCSM.” That assertion has been challenged previously at The Wild Reed, leading to the conclusion that the chancery’s public articulation of such a dismissive stance (along with its promotion of pseudo-science) is a relatively recent development within the local church.

As I’ve said before: history matters - if for no other reason than to remind us that things can and do change. It also serves to give us hope. The Church’s understanding of complex issues (such as homosexuality) and reform organizations (such as CPCSM) is never as rigid, absolute and/or negative as some would have us believe. The pendulum swings – and will one day swing back to a more enlightened and open stance on such important matters. (And, of course, the pendulum doesn’t just swing, it advances and arcs towards justice. Accordingly, I have no doubt that we’ll one day witness an official Roman Catholic stance on homosexuality far and beyond any we’ve witnessed to date in terms of openness to the experiences and insights of gay people.)

Following then, for the record, is the history of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis’ collaboration with CPCSM. This history is excerpted from the preface of the book I edited, Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective (2007).

I spent a lot of time and energy researching and writing this important history, and, as you’ll see, it’s a detailed and complex history – one that does not readily lend itself to easy and convenient sound bites. I find it unthinkable that I would betray such a history with the type of simplistic and false claim that was attributed to me in the Star Tribune’s article of November 17. I do indeed have my faults, but I do not consider flippancy and sloppiness to be among them.

___________________________________

First Steps

Like any initiative that seeks to identify the presence of God in human life, the genesis of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective can be traced to a very real and dynamic human reality and thus a distinct social and cultural milieu.

In the early-to-mid 1990s there was in the Twin Cities area much talk and publicity around two public school programs – Out for Equity in St. Paul, and Out 4 Good in Minneapolis. Both programs sought to address the needs and concerns of LGBT students within their respective school districts. Both were also created and sustained in response to an increasing number of public high school students who were either “coming out” – that is, openly stating that they were bisexual, gay, lesbian, or transgender – or openly exploring questions related to sexual identity and/or orientation.

The Safe Staff framework and model that was developed and used in the Out for Equity program was particularly instrumental in what would transpire in Catholic education in the Twin Cities. This model would be adapted, expanded, and implemented in the efforts to create safe school climates for LGBT youth in Catholic schools.

The presence of District 202 in Minneapolis also needs to be acknowledged. It was established in 1993 as the first and only permanent space in Minnesota by and for LGBT youth. District 202 is a unique community brought into being through the vision and proactive efforts of LGBT youth themselves.

In the midst of such topical and – for some – controversial developments, many within the Catholic high school setting began to talk openly of issues related to sexual orientation and youth. Was the phenomenon of an increasing number of students “coming out” in public schools an anomaly? Or was it a wake-up call to the presence of an invisible minority population within their own school communities? What was the authentic Catholic response to such a population? How would such a response impact the wider school community?

In raising and discussing such questions, an informal network of teachers, administrators, school counselors, parents, students, alums, and others began to take shape. Such conversations also brought to light the reality that an increasing number of teachers, counselors, and administrators were being confronted by students in Catholic schools who either identified as LGBT or were struggling with sexual identity/orientation issues. The need for a genuine educational and pastoral response to such students was duly recognized, as was the need to bring the reality of sexual orientation out of the silence and out of the shadows. Yet many within the Catholic educational system felt inadequately prepared to meet such challenges.

A Unique Coalition Responds to the Challenge

In 1995, after being approached by teachers, counselors, and administrators requesting training and information regarding the Church’s ministry to LGBT persons, the Catholic secondary school presidents of Minneapolis and St. Paul turned to the St. Paul/Minneapolis Archdiocese for guidance. Through the auspices of the Catholic Education and Formation Ministries (CEFM) of the archdiocese, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) was invited to share its long experience and expertise in ministry with LGBT people with both the CEFM and those schools requesting information and training.

CPCSM itself was founded in 1980 and is a grassroots, nonprofit, independent coalition based in the Twin Cities. The group comprises parents, teachers, Catholic school students and alumni, pastoral ministers, and human services professionals – all of various sexual orientations. Much of CPCSM’s ministry throughout the 1980s and early 1990s was focused on educational and advocacy activities aimed at encouraging parishes to be welcoming and supportive places for LGBT people.

CPCSM’s ministry has always been inspired by a zeal for inclusive justice and a passion for embracing diversity – especially as it relates to issues of sexual orientation and identity. The group firmly believes that members of sexual minorities, by virtue of their struggle to maintain a sense of personal integrity and authenticity, have unique gifts to offer the Church and society. Accordingly, like numerous progressive Catholic organizations and communities, CPCSM operates with the understanding that one’s sexuality can and must be affirmed as a gift and as an essential element to be integrated holistically into one’s faith life. Reflecting this, CPCSM’s Mission Statement reads as follows: “We pledge to create just and safe environments within the Catholic Church and society in which the dignity and integrity of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons and their families are recognized and affirmed.”

Resonating with the theological and pastoral underpinnings of this statement and committed to the ultimate goal of such a mission, the secondary school presidents chose to continue in dialogue with both CPCSM and CEFM. A series of diocesan-wide workshops resulted – planned and implemented with input from CPCSM. These workshops were open to all interested persons and were aimed at providing a general introduction to LGBT concerns within the context of Catholic education.

This period of dialogue was followed in October 1996 by a call from the secondary school presidents for the establishment of an Archdiocesan Study Group on Pastoral Care and Sexual Identity Issues. This group, comprising representatives from each of the involved schools as well as representatives from both CEFM and CPCSM, worked to identify and prioritize the needs of LGBT students and to determine the most appropriate and effective strategies and resources to address these needs. The most fundamental need recognized was for comprehensive training to enable Catholic educators to deal with LGBT youth in a pastorally sensitive and nonjudgmental manner.

Safe Staff Training

In response to the findings of the Archdiocesan Study Group on Pastoral Care and Sexual Identity Issues, CPCSM spearheaded the Safe Schools Initiative – an initiative already underway in an informal capacity at a number of Catholic high schools in the archdiocese. From 1997 to 1999, the Safe Schools Initiative involved members of CPCSM planning and facilitating fourteen four-session sequences of comprehensive training at seven archdiocesan high schools – resulting in 275 faculty and staff being trained as “safe staff.” Throughout, the training program was adapted, refined, and open to ongoing evaluation by both trainers and trainees.

A crucial component of the Safe Schools Initiative involved supporting faculty in understanding the range of Catholic teaching pertaining to both human sexuality and social justice. The training also involved ways of promoting such teaching in the classroom in pastorally sensitive, nonjudgmental ways.

Some of the topics covered by the Safe Schools Initiative included” LGBT Youth: Stages of Coming Out,” “Safe Staff: Definitions, Qualities, Roles and Responsibilities,” “Your Classroom,” Adapting School Policies,” “Supporting Each Other as Safe Staff,” “School Climate and Reducing Homophobia,” “Guidelines for Responding to Youth,” and Knowing and Developing Resources.” In some cases, the topics addressed had never before been considered as “training exercise” material, for example, “Pastoral Care Situations Vis-a-vis Church Teaching” and “Professional Relationship and Boundary Issues.”

The Safe Schools Initiative employed a range of both didactic and experiential strategies – role-play and practice scenarios, formal presentations, videos, and question and comments sessions. Each training session began with a LGBT-focused prayer and/or reflection. Some of these prayers, along with the numerous strategies, exercises, and resources, are included in Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective, as have reflections and insights from teachers, administrators, parents, and students whose lives have been positively and powerfully impacted by the Safe Schools Initiative. The inclusion of such material ensures that Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective not only serves as a valuable educational resource, but as a historical record and faith testimony of the many and varied individuals and communities involved.

It is also important to acknowledge the effects that the Safe Schools Initiative has had on other areas of school life. The training forum was the impetus for diversity initiatives on racism and classism that were subsequently implemented in some Catholic high schools. Partly as a result of the positive ends achieved by the Safe School Initiative, a groundbreaking 1998 meeting of Catholic high school boards recognized and highlighted the importance of LGBT students and the issues that confront them.

One further result of the Safe Schools Initiative is that it has empowered individual teachers and students to develop and implement initiatives of their own. Within particular Catholic high schools, for instance, editorial collectives promoting greater representation of LGBT issues in school newspapers and expanded and updated LGBT media resources are now operative.

Backlash

Not all consider the concept of safe staff training as one that should be integrated into our Catholic schools. In the mid-1990s, for instance, local conservatives formed a specific organization to undermine the Safe Schools Initiative. This group and others view such an initiative as “invading school curriculum” with “teachings contrary to Church teaching.” Sadly, such groups fail to recognize or acknowledge the pastoral and social justice grounding of safe staff training. Instead, such training is seen to be “instructing administrators, teachers, librarians and counselors [in] how to promote the GLBT agenda” (letter to the editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, July 19, 2003). This “agenda,” however, is never actually spelt out by such conservative groups who seem unresponsive to the movement of the Spirit in and through the lives of those whose experiences take them beyond what has been narrowly defined as orthodox. Regardless, this vocal minority had had a chilling effect on safe staff training initiatives within many schools, and has effectively halted CPCSM representatives from being active participants in any training that does take place.

Yet such a pastoral initiative is not dependent on any outside organization. Many of the schools originally involved in the Safe Schools Initiative have continued and expanded the initiative – with yesterday’s first wave of trainees becoming today’s trainers of their peers.

The Journey Continues

CPCSM firmly believes that the need for greater awareness and education regarding the issue of LGBT youth and Catholic education – a need clearly demonstrated and responded to within the St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese – is, in fact, a nationwide need. The compilation of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective was the first phase toward sharing nationwide CPCSM’s wealth of strategies and resources that have been proven to be genuinely innovative, pastoral, and empowering for educators, parents, and students.

CPCSM’s work relating to the vision of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective has ensured that the organization has received national recognition. In 1999, CPCSM was awarded the Mission Award for Non-Profit Advocacy by the Minnesota Council of Non-Profits. Also, in July 2000, CEFM received the prestigious 2000 SPICE (selected Programs for Improving Catholic Education0 Award from the National Catholic Education Association for integrating the social teachings of the Church into Catholic education. This award was given, in large part, as a result of the groundbreaking safe staff training model put into place by CPCSM while working with CEFM.

The word about Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective is definitely out, and has engendered much interest and enthusiasm. Furthermore, as we continue our ministry with and for the LGBT community, CPCSM continues to hear stories of people’s high school experiences and what a positive difference a resource like Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective would have had on their lives at that time and beyond.

Clearly, the time for Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective has arrived.

___________________________________

NOTE: For reviews of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective, click here, here, and here.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
History Matters
How Times Have Changed
Gay Catholics, the Courage Apostolate, and Reparative Therapy
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Courage

Recommended Off-site Links:
The Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM)

A Yearning for the Sacred

2009-11-24T07:20:00.000-08:00

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.

Timothy Kincaid Reviews the "Manhattan Declaration"

2009-11-23T08:01:00.000-08:00

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)

2009-11-23T07:00:00.000-08:00

Here is the third and final installment of a 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.

Recommended Off-site Link:
Cornerstone Old Catholic Community

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 . . .

2009-11-21T18:00:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-21T07:00:00.000-08:00

. . . 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

2009-11-20T07:00:00.000-08:00

.

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

2009-11-19T07:00:00.000-08:00

. . . 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 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"

2009-11-18T10:53:00.000-08:00

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

Report: Homosexuality No Factor in Abusive Priests

2009-11-18T07:00:00.000-08:00

Report commissioned by the U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops
says that there is no data indicating that
homosexuality was a predictor of sexual abuse.

Thanks to Terence over at the excellent Queering the Church, I’ve become aware of the Associated Press article below. I appreciate Terence’s take on the issue this article addresses. Here’s a little of what Terence has to say:

The fact that this report confirms what the rest of the world knows [i.e., that homosexuality is not a factor in the cases of abusive priests], is welcome, but not earth-shattering. Don’t hold your breath for the bishops to announce that they accept the report, or will act on this finding, or even for them to release the full report when it has been concluded.

The real causes of the problem lie within the church’s own structures, as numerous observers have noted: the appalling monopoly and abuse of power, compulsory clerical celibacy, and a deeply flawed, seminary based training system that is a hangover from the Middle Ages, leaving priests with minimal understanding of human sexuality, their own or anyone else’s.(Reports elsewhere state that this same interim John Jay report concludes that priests with the better training in human sexuality were the least likely to offend).

Following is the Associated Press article.

________________________________

Report: Homosexuality No Factor
in Abusive Priests

By Rachel Zoll

Associated Press
November 17, 2009

A preliminary report commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to investigate the clergy sex abuse scandal has found no evidence that gay priests are more likely than heterosexual clergy to molest children, the lead authors of the study said Tuesday.

The full report by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice won’t be completed until the end of next year. But the authors said their evidence to date found no data indicating that homosexuality was a predictor of abuse.

“What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse,” said Margaret Smith of John Jay College, in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now.”

The question has been raised repeatedly within and outside the church because the overwhelming majority of known victims were boys. As part of the church’s response to the crisis, the Vatican ordered a review of all U.S. seminaries that, among other issues, looked for any “evidence of homosexuality” in the schools.

Yet, many experts on sex offenders reject any link between sexual orientation and committing abuse. Karen Terry, a John Jay researcher, said it was important to distinguish between sexual identity and behavior, and to look at who the offender had access to when seeking victims.

The bishops commissioned the $2 million study as part of widespread reforms they enacted at the height of the abuse crisis. The scandal erupted in 2002 with the case of one predator priest in the Archdiocese of Boston, then spread to every U.S. diocese and beyond.

Almost 14,000 molestation claims have been filed against Catholic clergy since 1950, according to tallies the bishops have released in recent years. Abuse-related costs have reached at least $2.3 billion in the same period.

At the meeting Tuesday, Bishop Edward Braxton of the Diocese of Belleville, Ill., asked the researchers whether their study indicated that homosexuality should be considered when evaluating a candidate for the priesthood. In 2005, the Vatican issued a policy statement that men with “deep-seated” attraction to other men should be barred from the priesthood.

Smith said: “If that exclusion were based on the fact that that person would be more probable than any other candidate to abuse, we do not find that at this time.”

The latest findings affirmed previous reports that the rate of clergy abuse has declined steeply since the mid 1980s. Most of the claims being made now involve allegations of abuse from decades ago.

____________________________

To supplement this latest report (and Terence’s erudite observations), here is an excerpt from an insightful commentary by Richard Sipe, first published in 2005 in the San Jose Mercury News.

As you’ll see, Sipe’s commentary discusses an earlier report by the John Jay College. I can recall that when this report was released in 2002, some anti-gay elements within the Church actually tried to use it to blame homosexuality for the clergy sex abuse scandal.

Yet as Louise Haggett notes in her article, “Clergy Sexual Abuse, Mandatory Celibacy, and Homosexual Priests,” “Nowhere in the John Jay College Report is it indicated that homosexuality is a factor. Conclusions drawn about homosexuality were merely commentary by clergy panel members on EWTN the day the report was made public. There is no basis for the argument that homosexual priests were responsible for the majority of the abuse, and there are too many arguments against it.”

Sex, Lies, and Priesthood

By Richard Sipe

San Jose Mercury News
October 2, 2005

[S]ome church leaders have assumed that the large number of priest sex-abuse cases reported in recent years can be blamed mainly on gay priests, even though there is not a shred of scientific proof to back that up.

Part of the fuel for that mistaken belief is a recent study of the sex-abuse crisis in the U.S. church. The study, ordered up by the church and conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice, concluded that at least 4 percent of priests were alleged to have abused minors in the 52 years ending in 2002. (That translated to almost 4,400 priests.)

John Jay also concluded that 81 percent of the alleged victims were boys. Some people assumed, as a result, that sexual abuse is a homosexual problem.

Not so. First of all, there have been no studies in the general population that have even suggested gays are any more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles.

Plus, there are other, more likely explanations for why the majority of abused children were boys.

Studies of the priesthood have indicated that 66 percent of priests are psychosexually underdeveloped or maldeveloped. Part of the reason is that clerical culture encourages the idealization of adolescents (for their purity and passion), as well as encouraging dependency and conformity in its priests.

When adults -- gay or heterosexual -- function on a level that is equal to most adolescents, it’s not surprising that the people they’re sexually attracted to are adolescents. And in general, the adolescents whom priests spent time with were boys -- mainly altar boys. No one was suspicious when priests spent time with those boys -- even after Mass -- because part of the priests’ duty was to mentor boys they thought would make good priests.

In the end, the root of the sex-abuse problem may well be the church’s demand for celibacy without adequately training for it and responsibly supporting it. That’s not to say that many men cannot choose to remain celibate and be happy with that life. But for those who joined the priesthood failing to make such a decision, or because they were confused about their sexuality, celibacy can become too difficult to sustain.

In my own ethnographic study of 1,500 priests from 1960 to 1985, I found that only 50 percent, at any one time, were practicing chastity. Gays do just as well -- or poorly, take your pick -- as heterosexuals in observance.

The structure, if not the intent, of the Vatican’s seminary investigation -- combined with the possible ruling against gay seminarians -- is a smoke screen to cover up the fact that too many priests and bishops, gay and straight, are not practicing the chastity they promised and did not protect the children in their care.

So if you really want to be a Catholic priest, when you go to a seminary and they ask you what your orientation is, tell them it doesn’t make any difference. You want to be an honest and trustworthy celibate, dedicated to the work exemplified by men like Francis, Ignatius, Pope John XXIII, and even John Paul II, who initiated the idea of a ban on gay priests.

To read Sipe’s commentary in its entirety, click here.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Homosexuality and the Priesthood
Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal & Reform
The Pope’s “Scandalous” Stance on Homosexuality
“Spiritual Paternity”
Weakland, the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal, and Homophobia
Abuse Survivor Says Scapegoating Homosexuality for Clergy Sex Abuse is “Ill-informed, Ignorant, Corrupt, and Dishonest”

Recommended Off-site Link:
Fig Leaf Removed: Clerical Abuse is NOT Caused by Gay Priests, After All - Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, November 17, 2009).
John Jay Study: No Correlation Between Sexual Orientation and Catholic Clerical Sexual Abuse - William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, November 19, 2009).
Gay Groups Praise Report on Gay Priests and Sexual Abuse - Michael Consoli (BeliefNet.com, November 18, 2009

Gay Catholics, the Courage Apostolate, and Reparative Therapy

2009-11-17T07:00:00.000-08:00

Ahead of this evening’s CPCSM educational forum, “Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable: The Catholic Church, Homosexuality, and Reparative Therapy,” Jeff Strickler has an article in today’s Star Tribune in which I and CPCSM-co-founder David McCaffrey feature. Following is Strickler’s article - with added links and some important corrections and clarifications.

_____________________________

Gays Reject Catholic Church’s Attempt to “Cure” Them

Gay and lesbian Roman Catholics who contact the Archdiocese
of St. Paul and Minneapolis for spiritual guidance can find themselves
directed toward a 12-step program aimed at changing their behavior.
Australian-born Michael Bayly, who is the executive coordinator of the
Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, has organized a protest
forum. Bayly, who is a member of Spirit of St. Stephens Catholic Community,
believes the Catholic Church needs to be “more accepting of diversity.”

By Jeff Strickler

Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
November 17, 2009

Gay and lesbian Roman Catholics are protesting
a therapy aimed at helping them become celibate.
The programs are provoking national –
and even international – protests from critics.

Gay and lesbian Roman Catholics who contact the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis for spiritual guidance can find themselves directed toward programs aimed at helping them become celibate.

Called reparative therapy, the programs are provoking national – and even international – protests from critics who say they are ineffective at best and, in some cases, harmful. [Skrickler makes quite a jump here. Neither the Roman Catholic Courage apostolate or CPCSM consider “programs aimed at helping [gay people to be] celibate” as examples of “reparative therapy.” For CPCSM’s concerns about Courage and reparative therapy, click here. As you’ll see, the Church isn’t actually attempting to “cure” gay people - so the article’s headline is erroneous, which is unfortunate for all concerned, i.e., something false is said about the Church and we look like we don’t know what we’re talking about! It should be noted, however, that the Courage apostolate, does not discourage its members from attempting so-called reparative therapy endorsed and/or offered by other organizations (such as NARTH). In relation to our program this evening at St. Martin’s Table, that’s our issue with Courage, not that it or the wider Church are themselves trying to “cure” gays.]

Many see the programs as an example of the Vatican’s swing toward conservatism, and an insulting blow to a decade of bridge-building between the church and the gay community.

“[Retired Archbishop] Harry Flynn came to us – we didn’t go to them, they came to us – in the late 1990s and asked us to serve as resource people for the church,” said Michael Bayly, executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM). “Then a new pope comes in. Now the archdiocese won’t even take our phone calls.” [Okay, for the record, I don’t recall this being a direct quote on my part. For a start, the whole “late 1990s” time frame is wrong. By that time CPCSM was already “on the outs” with the chancery as a result of the Catholic Parents Online-orchestrated backlash to our Safe Schools Initiative within a number of local Catholic high schools. Plus at no time did Harry Flynn personally approach CPCSM. I’m misquoted, plain and simple. A more accurate statement of the relationship between the Archdiocese and CPCSM - and you can quote me on this - is that throughout the 1980s and ’90s CPCSM, an independent grassroots coalition, worked with various parishes and archdiocesan agencies and was approached in 1995 by the archdiocesan education administration office – then called Catholic Education and Formation Ministries (CEFM) – to share its experience and expertise in ministry with gay people in designing and implementing a Safe Schools Initiative for Catholic high schools. A need for competent and compassionate ministry with gay youth in Catholic high schools had been identified by school administrators and brought to the attention of the head of CEFM. Archbishop Flynn was aware that CEFM had approached and was working with CPCSM. This collaboration took place in the mid-late 1990s. For more of CPCSM’s relationship with the Archdiocese, see here and here.]

So they are speaking out on their own. They’re hosting a forum Tuesday at St. Martin’s Table Restaurant and Bookstore in Minneapolis that they say will shine a spotlight on what they term the “pseudo-scientific organizations” that endorse reparative therapy.

Under the auspices of its Office of Marriage and Family, the Catholic church’s programs are modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous and its sister program for the families of addicts, Al-Anon. The programs, called Courage (AA) and Encourage (Al-Anon), are intended to help gays remain chaste.[In the Arcdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, Courage goes by the name of Faith in Action.]

The chaplain of the local Courage chapter, the Rev. James Livingston, was out of town Monday and unavailable to comment. In explaining the programs, the archdiocese’s website contains links to material that some gays find objectionable. That includes a Q&A with the director of Courage’s national office, the Rev. Paul Check, in which he says, “People are relieved to know the condition [of homosexuality] is both treatable and preventable.”

“Homosexuality is not an illness,” objected David McCaffrey, one of the people who founded CPCSM in 1980. “You shouldn’t be treating it because there’s nothing to treat.”

Check also was not available to comment, but a person in his office became angry when she heard about the forum. Although not an official spokesperson, she said, “We don’t tell anyone what to do. We just try to help them live according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.”

A decade ago, the CPCSM was asked to conduct sensitivity training sessions for the archdiocese. “That’s how much things have changed recently,” Bayly said.

He pointed to an article last November in the Catholic Spirit, the archdiocese’s newspaper, endorsing the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Describing itself as a nonprofit educational organization serving people with “unwanted homosexual attraction,” it maintains that through therapy, homosexuals can “develop their heterosexual potential.”

In 2006, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a statement challenging reparative or “conversion” therapy: “The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science,” it said. “There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”

NARTH does have its supporters, however. In 2003, Psychology Today magazine ran an editorial citing data “which suggests that sexual orientation conversion therapy is at least sometimes successful.”

NARTH is not connected to the Catholic Church and is endorsed by some Protestant denominations, also.

Minnesotans aren’t the only ones objecting. There have been protest marches outside NARTH meetings in Dallas and London, and there’s a NARTH protest page on Facebook.

A Courage drop-out

Tonight’s forum features a panel that includes Bayly; Dr. Simon Rosser, a professor in the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health, and Philip Lowe Jr., a former member of the Twin Cities chapter of Courage.

They will present an APA report that recommends that therapists address the distress of Catholic homosexuals “but not aim to alter sexual orientation,” which it says “has the potential to be harmful.”

Lowe spent 15 months in the Courage program in hopes of finding a way to reconcile his religion and his sexuality.

“I went to weekly meetings, I went to confession, I did everything you were supposed to do,” he said. Through it all, he battled with the feeling that he was supposed to distance himself from who he is. “It wasn't a positive experience.”

He quit the group and the church a year ago. He has since found a partner and a new church home, St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral in Minneapolis.

“We’ve been embraced by that community,” he said. “I wish that everyone could experience that.”

So, why don’t other homosexuals leave the church?

“We identify the church as the people in it, not the hierarchy that runs it,” McCaffrey said. “Besides, we’ve been Roman Catholics all of our lives. It’s part of our lives. It's who we are.”

Bayly doesn’t expect the forum to change the church’s stance on homosexuality, but he does hope that it might open a line of communication.

“All we’re trying to do is start a discussion,” he said. “We’re trying to do a little consciousness-raising about the needs and gifts of the gay and lesbian community.”

Jeff Strickler • 612-673-7392

Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable:
The Catholic Church, Homosexuality, and Reparative Therapy

When: Today. Soup supper at 5 p.m., program at 6:30.

Where: St. Martin’s Table Restaurant and Bookstore, 2001 Riverside Av., Minneapolis.

Cost: Supper is $5; program is free.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable
Beyond Courage
The Real Meaning of Courage
The Many Forms of Courage (Part 1)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part 2)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part 3)
The Many Manifestations of God's Loving Embrace
Debunking NARTH (Part 1)
Debunking NARTH (Part 2)

Recommended Off-site Link:
Reflections on the Churches and Pastoral Outreach to Gay Persons in Light of the Ex-Gay Movement - William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, November 18, 2009).

Image: David Joles. (Note: The image pictured behind me is of St. Sergius and Bacchus).

A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage

2009-11-16T20:35:00.000-08:00

The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington DC, John Bryson Chane (pictured at right), has a powerful commentary in today’s Washington Post, in which he makes a “Christian case for same-sex marriage.”

Let’s hope the Roman Catholic bishops currently meeting in Baltimore are tuning in!

_________________________

A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage

By John Bryson Chane
November 16, 2009

Most media coverage of the D.C. Council’s steps toward civil marriage equality for same-sex couples has followed a worn-out script that gives the role of speaking for God to clergy who are opposed to equality. As the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, I would say respectfully to my fellow Christians that people who deny others the blessings they claim for themselves should not assume they speak for the Almighty. And to journalists I would offer a short history of changing Christian understandings of the institution of marriage.

Christians have always argued about marriage. Jesus criticized the Mosaic law on divorce, saying “What God has joined together let no man separate.” But we don't see clergy demanding that the city council make divorce illegal.

Some conservative Christian leaders claim that their understanding of marriage is central to Christian teaching. How do they square that claim with the Apostle Paul’s teaching that marriage is an inferior state, one reserved for people who are not able to stay singly celibate and resist the temptation to fornication?

As historian Stephanie Coontz points out, the church did not bless marriages until the third century, or define marriage as a sacrament until 1215. The church embraced many of the assumptions of the patriarchal culture, in which women and marriageable children were assets to be controlled and exploited to the advantage of the man who headed their household. The theology of marriage was heavily influenced by economic and legal considerations; it emphasized procreation, and spoke only secondarily of the “mutual consolation of the spouses.”

In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the relationship of the spouses assumed new importance, as the church came to understand that marriage was a profoundly spiritual relationship in which partners experienced, through mutual affection and self-sacrifice, the unconditional love of God.

The Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer puts it this way: “We believe that the union of husband and wife, in heart, body and mind, is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.”

Our evolving understanding of what marriage is leads, of necessity, to a re-examination of who it is for. Most Christian denominations no longer teach that all sex acts must be open to the possibility of procreation, and therefore contraception is permitted. Nor do they hold that infertility precludes marriage. The church has deepened its understanding of the way in which faithful couples experience and embody the love of the creator for creation. In so doing, it has put itself in a position to consider whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Theologically, therefore, Christian support for same-sex marriage is not a dramatic break with tradition, but a recognition that the church's understanding of marriage has changed dramatically over 2,000 years.

I have been addressing the sound theological foundation for a new religious understanding of marriage, because it disturbs me greatly to see opposition to marriage for same-sex couples portrayed as the only genuinely religious or Christian position. I am somewhat awed by the breadth of religious belief and life experience reflected among more than 200 clergy colleagues who are publicly supporting marriage equality in D.C.

But it’s important to emphasize that the actions taken by the D.C. Council do not address the religious meaning of marriage at all. The proposed legislation would not force any congregation to change its religious teachings or bless any couple. Our current laws do not force any denomination to offer religious blessing to second marriages, yet those marriages, like interfaith marriages, are equal in the sight of the law even though some churches do not consider them religiously valid.

Existing laws require religious organizations that receive public funding to extend the same benefits to gay employees as to straight ones. In many instances, that includes health care for spouses. This has led some religious leaders, who believe same-sex marriage to be sinful, to threaten to get out of the social service business. I respect these individuals’ right to their convictions, but I do not follow their logic. The Catholic Church, for instance, teaches that remarriage without an annulment is sinful, yet it has not campaigned against extending health benefits to such couples. Additionally, several Catholic dioceses in states that permit same-sex marriage have found a way to accommodate themselves to such laws.

D.C.’s proposed marriage equality law explicitly protects the religious liberty of those who believe that God’s love can be reflected in the loving commitment between two people of the same sex and of those who do not find God there. This is as it should be in a society so deeply rooted in the principles of religious freedom and equality under the law.

John Bryson Chane is Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington DC, and a member of the Chicago Consultation, which works towards the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Anglican Church.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
On Civil Unions and Christian Tradition
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

Knowing What to Do, Knowing Why to Stay

2009-11-16T04:04:00.000-08:00

.

Recently on the blogsite of America magazine, James Martin, S.J., listed all the things that gay people “are not to do according to the teaching of the [Roman Catholic] church.” They include: Enjoy romantic love, marry, adopt a child, enter a seminary, and work for the church and be open.

Martin also notes that gay people in the church are frequently reminded that they are “objectively disordered,” and that their sexuality is “a deviation.”

He concludes his piece with the following:

Taken together, [all of this] raises an important pastoral question for all of us: What kind of life remains for these brothers and sisters in Christ, those who wish to follow the teachings of the church? Officially at least, the gay Catholic seems set up to lead a lonely, loveless, secretive life. Is this what God desires for the gay person?

Although the points Martin raises are important, I’m nevertheless disappointed that he makes no attempt to offer answers to the critical questions he poses. There’s also no acknowledgment that the “teachings of the church” regarding homosexuality are discerned by many Catholics - both gay and straight - as being at odds with the gospel message. Indeed, after often long and difficult journeys of discernment, many, in good conscience, dissent from these teachings and trust instead their own experience of God mediated in and through their lives and relationships.

All of this reminds me of a commentary entitled “Untouchable” that Ned O’Gorman had published last December in Commonweal:

There is a place where even the liberal Catholic press fears to tread. The relative lack of serious discussion about homosexual desire casts into spiritual darkness a tribe of believing Catholic men and women who must fend for themselves in their quest for a serene emotional life, for companionship, and for the comfort of sexual love. For “the teaching church,” the subject is untouchable.

. . . as it largely appears also for Martin, who only questions the “teaching church,” but offers no direct critique, counter arguments, or alternatives.

O’Gorman continues:

There are few intellectuals, lay or clerical, who will take it on, for it is risky to bring into the public forum the notion that there are Catholics who practice their faith with diligence and who love those of their own sex and have known the joy of that love.

As O’Gorman notes, he is one such Catholic, one who has “discovered that such a love is easy to bear, complete, and holy.”

I contend that of those gay Catholics who remain within the Roman expression of Catholicism, most would resonate with – or at least concur with – O’Gorman’s experience. They consciously live their lives – their relational lives – in ways that continually reveal God’s loving and transforming presence. And this journey is undertaken and celebrated regardless of what the clerical leadership of the church insists should or shouldn’t be done.

The lives and stories of such gay Catholics are out there. They are lives and stories of Catholics who know exactly what needs to be done in the face of the prohibitions set forth by the church’s clerical caste. I wish James Martin had drawn from these lives and stories when writing his piece for America.

And I wish he would have drawn from his own experience as a Catholic Christian and responded to the question: Is a lonely, loveless, secretive life what God desires for the gay person?

My response to such a question is unequivocal: Of course it’s not.

Fullness of Life

Jesus came to embody and model a way of living and being in the world that leads to fullness of life. God does not will anyone to “lead a lonely, loveless, secretive life.” It’s a lie to tell a gay person that such a life is the special cross that God wills them to bear. Yet this is what many are told by some in the church. But it’s a lie. It is not God’s will.

God desires us to be full human beings, willing and able to give and receive love. Gay people, like their straight counterparts, can and do experience the giving and receiving of love through sexual relationships marked by justice, wholeness, and this life-transforming and, yes, life-giving sharing of love. The Church as the people of God has for centuries been growing in ever-greater awareness of this truth. Yet the vast majority of those males who comprise the clerical, celibate caste of the Roman Catholic Church have not. And the question has to be asked: Why?

The central problem

My own view is that many (perhaps even a majority) of bishops and priests are closeted (and psycho-sexually stunted) gay men who do not want healthy, well-adjusted gay people in their midst. Such people pose a highly uncomfortable challenge to all forms of unhealthy and dysfunctional expressions of sexuality. In a similar way, the vast majority of male clerics have a stunted and dysfunctional connection with women – so much so that they fear them gaining any kind of equality in ministry.

In short, most men in positions of power within Roman Catholicism fear relating with anyone who has grown beyond the dysfunction that, in large measure, justifies and sustains the entire clerical, celibate caste system within which men are prevented from growing, changing . . . and, yes, loving in a truly Christ-like way.

Author James Baldwin says it best:

I think the inability to love is the central problem, because the inability masks a certain terror, and that terror is the terror of being touched. And, if you can’t be touched, you can’t be changed. And if you can’t be changed, you can’t be alive. The great difficulty is to say YES to life. The difficult quest is to be oneself, to be true, to say YES with courage – to accept one’s sexuality, one’s race, one’s bittersweet contradictions.*

Think about the church’s prohibition against any type of sexual connecting outside of procreative sex within heterosexual marriage sanctioned by the church – a prohibition that even includes masturbation. At it’s most basic level, it’s a prohibition against touch – human touch that can potentially lead to greater self-awareness, personal development, and fullness of life.

I think centuries ago, church leaders recognized and began to fear the power of sexual touch. Such touch is transforming; it has the potential, yes, for harm, but also for liberation and empowerment. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the strict sexual prohibitions within the Christian church came about during what Harvey Cox has termed the “Age of Belief,” that time when Christianity “curdled into a top-heavy edifice defined by obligatory beliefs enforced by a hierarchy.”

Cox maintains that, in contrast, early Christians allowed for multiple understandings and expressions of the faith, so much so, I’d add, that even the “gay saints” Sergius and Bacchus were acknowledged and accepted. Yet once Christianity moved from being “a loose network of local congregations, with varied forms of leadership” into a “rigid class structure with a privileged clerical caste at the top ruling over an increasingly disenfranchised laity on the bottom,” all kinds of changes began to take place. And women, along with those whom we now understand as gay, where no doubt the first to be “pushed to the underside and the edges.”

We’ve inherited quite a problem, haven’t we?

Still, our God is a God of transformation. People – and institutions – can and do change. Life remains a precious gift – full, it’s true, of “bittersweet contradictions,” of joy and suffering, pleasure and pain. It’s both “tree of life” and “cross of death.” So when a gay person is unlucky in love, when he/she experiences, for instance, heartache over a failed relationship, it’s wrong to blame his/her sexual orientation. It’s erroneous to imply that the homosexual orientation guarantees such unhappiness and failure; that a homosexual orientation is the mark of a broken sexuality. Yet these types of things are exactly what the clerical leadership of the Church says. It says that as gay people we can never be fulfilled and happy; we can never experience God’s sanctifying love in our sexual relationships. These are all lies. If you take nothing else, dear reader, from this blog, take this: Those types of statements, that type of thinking . . . lies, all lies.

Why stay?

One reason I choose to remain in the Roman Catholic Church is to identify and refute such lies. For me, these untruths are such a grievous affront to the life and teachings of Jesus that I simply cannot remain silent.

Increasingly, the question for me is not “What should I do as a gay Catholic?,” but rather “How best can I do what I know I must do as a gay Catholic?”

And what exactly must I do?

Well, it’s really not that much different from what we are all called to do. I am to bear humble yet firm witness to God’s loving and transforming presence in my life and relationships as a human being – a human being who happens to be gay. I also feel called to bear witness to what I experience of God in the lives and relationships of other people – gay people included.

I believe that all of this means that our seeking of and attuning to God’s presence in real human lives must come before unquestioning adherence to traditions and doctrines uninformed by and unresponsive to this same sacred presence mediated in and through human experience. As I’ve noted previously, love trumps tradition; [and] conscience, informed by God’s presence in the depths of our being, trumps doctrine developed by others unmindful of our reality and of God’s presence in our lives.

I don’t do any of this simply for myself but for the ongoing development of both the church and humanity. I believe the honest sharing of who we are and of God’s presence in our lives and relationships is not only needed for the continued shaping of our theology – our collective way of talking about God – but for our healing from centuries of fear and ignorance, and the terrible things – the violent and debilitating things – that such fear and ignorance has inflicted upon all of us. Homophobia and sexism do not only harm gay people and women, but, in many ways, men as well. We all need healing.

Perhaps the following excerpt from Part 5 of my semi-autobiographical series The Journal of James Curtis will clarify what I mean. In this particular excerpt James recounts a conversation with a Roman Catholic womanpriest named Cathie.

“But aren’t you all excommunicated?” I asked. “I mean, this system you want to be part of doesn’t accept you. Why be part of it?”

Cathie looked at me intently.

“James,” she said softly, “does this system accept you as a gay man? You know it doesn’t, and yet you stay; you want to be part of it. Why?

I was lost for words.

“We stay, James, you and I, because we believe we have something to give to the Church. The Church would be incomplete with out us. One of my mentors is an old Native American woman, and in her culture they have the idea of ‘medicine’ – of healing insight and be-ing that brings wholeness to individuals and the community. I believe with all my heart that our dear Church, our spiritual community, is terribly sick, profoundly unhealthy, and that it’s people like us, people whom those in positions of power dismiss and ‘excommunicate,’ who carry within them the medicine that’s needed to make the Church well, to make it whole. That’s why I stay, James. Not to be part of a sick and dysfunctional system, but because I’m a medicine bearer, as are you. And we’re called to be part of the healing, part of this wonderful movement of the Spirit that is happening all around us. But we have to be within the system to facilitate the healing.”

Of course, I’m well aware that the clerical leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has a near-obsessive compulsion to dismiss, malign, and deny the lives and relationships of gay people, and accordingly the transforming and healing presence of God that they contain for all of us. If there is anything that could be understood as the “cross” that gay Catholics must bear, it’s this willful degradation by the clerical leadership of our lives and our relationship with self, others, and God.

Recently there was a news story about the Vatican’s views on the possibility of life on other planets. In contemplating the idea of God creating alien life forms, Jose Gabriel Funes, a Jesuit priest, astronomer, and the director of the Vatican Observatory said: “We cannot put limits on God’s creative freedom.”

Yet this is exactly what the clerical leadership of the Church does when it comes to human sexuality; when it declares as infallible its current (and limited) understanding of the meaning and purpose of sexuality and its expression. Indeed, it would seem that those who comprise the clerical leadership would be more comfortable with alien life forms than with their gay neighbors here on earth!

Reform and Renewal

I’m fortunate to be part of a number of local groups that are working to make a difference in the lives of Catholics – gay and straight – who are deeply troubled by the disconnects between the hierarchical church’s views, policies, and practices concerning homosexuality and the gospel message of love. Together, we’re working to identify these disconnects and to articulate alternative policies and practices that embody a church that radiates Jesus’ core teaching of radical equality, unabashed inclusivity, and transforming love. We will not be silent; we are not leaving.

I’m well aware, however, that not all gay people are able to remain in the abusive environment that the church has become as a result of the attitudes and actions of its clerical leadership. Part of me recognizes that for many people – especially women and gay people – the healthiest thing to do, both emotionally and spiritually, is to cease participating in the Roman expression of Catholicism. Indeed, I know many gay people who have found a loving and accepting spiritual home elsewhere, for example in the Episcopal Church or in the Old Catholic Church.

I can’t say for sure that one day I may not join the mass exodus of people from the Roman Catholic Church, but for now I’m committed to staying and continuing working with others to bring about reform and renewal. This blog is part of that effort, as is my work with the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), the Progressive Catholic Voice, and the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform.

The King’s Outlaw

I’ve often thought that if ever I was to write an autobiography of my life as a gay Catholic I’d entitle it “The King’s Outlaw.” It’s a title that reflects certain medieval and courtly concepts so beloved by “traditionalists.” But that’s not I’m drawn to it.

No, “The King’s Outlaw” was the English title given to a French television series (Thierry La Fronde) that I remember watching as a child in Australia. And yes, Jean-Claude Drouot who played the outlaw in this Robin Hood-type tale was a very handsome guy indeed in my little gay boy eyes!

I choose this title because it sums up well my relationship with the church – and with God. You see, I believe that although I’m definitely outside the “laws” as promulgated by the church’s clerical leadership, I remain nevertheless in the “king’s”, i.e., God’s loving embrace as I strive to live a life of consciousness, compassion, integrity and, yes, chastity, i.e., purity of heart.

The current pope and the majority of bishops may mean well, but I believe that when it comes to matters of human sexuality they’ve betrayed the gospel message. As James Martin and others have clearly shown, there is no good news for gay people in the discriminatory ideology that the Vatican attempts to pass off as sexual theology. Indeed, there’s not much good news for any of us. And so, given where the hierarchical church is at in terms of its sexual theology, I’m well aware that I stay as an outlaw, a dissenter. And that’s okay.

Of course, I’ve been accused of trying to “destroy the church” - by which I believe is really meant a certain (limited) way of understanding the church. I’m not interested in destruction, but rather transformation – my own, the church’s, and the world’s. That’s ultimately what I live for. And that’s why I remain a gay Catholic in a far from perfect church.

* James Baldwin, from an interview first published in The Advocate and excerpted in the Utne Reader, July/August 2002, p. 100.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Getting It Right
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
Gay People and the Spiritual Life
The Gifts of Homosexuality
The Many Forms of Courage (Part 1)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part 2)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part 3)
Be Not Afraid, You Can Be Happy and Gay
Trusting God’s Generous Invitation
Hypocrisy, Ignorance, Promiscuity, and the Love that is the Center of Catholic Christianity
Compassion, Christian Community, and Homosexuality
Celebrating Our Sanctifying Truth
A Catholic Presence at Gay Pride
A Catholic Voice for Marriage Equality at the State Capitol
What Is It That Ails You?
The “Ratzinger Letter” of 1986 as “Theological Pornography”
Staying on Board
Choosing to Stay
The Challenge to Become Ourselves
No Matter What

Recommended Off-site Links:
The Catholic Church’s Judas Kiss - Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, November 14, 2009).
More on the Judas Kiss: What is a Gay Catholic to Do? - Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, November 15, 2009).
The Conversation Centrist Catholics Do Not Intend to Have: What Are the Gays to Do? - William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, November 14, 2009).
The Conversation Centrist Catholics Do Not Intend To Have, Continued - William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, November 16, 2009).
What Should Gay Catholics Do May Not Mean Just Chaste Suffering in the Closet - Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, November 15, 2009).

Opening image: Michael J. Bayly.

David R. Weiss: When Charity Becomes the Weapon

2009-11-16T01:48:00.000-08:00

Following is a great commentary written by my friend David Weiss.

___________________________

When Charity Becomes the Weapon

By David R. Weiss
November 16, 2009

Two thousand years ago Roman citizens, from peasants to philosophers mocked the early Christians for their foolish beliefs. How could anyone seriously believe that there was only one God, that this God took on flesh not in a Roman emperor but in a Jewish peasant, or especially that this peasant, Jesus, was worthy of worship even after he was crucified?

But on this singular point, the Romans offered begrudging respect: “See, how they love.” In a society that doled out care only to those with honor, a society that routinely abandoned children and consigned many to the margins, the early Christians were noteworthy in their care for everyone—including those not among their kind.

Thus, when I read (Pioneer Press, 11/13/09) of the Catholic Church’s threat to cut its social service programs to some 68,000 of our capital city’s most marginal folks should the District of Columbia decide to allow same-sex marriage, I was embarrassed. What tragic irony that because the church doesn’t agree with the way that society increasingly chooses to honor the love of some of our citizens, the church threatens to forsake the very practice of charity by which it is known.

This much seems clear: Jesus would not have made such a threat. Not that he was beyond issuing threats. Indeed, in a telling scene (Matthew 10:11-15) as he sends his followers out into the countryside, where they will travel in pairs but otherwise be vulnerable to the whims of the towns they enter, he issues words that might give the church itself pause today: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”

I certainly recognize the right of the church to govern its own affairs. And I wholeheartedly believe the church is called to live according to a counter-cultural value. But that value is an unimaginable depth of unconditional compassion, not a readiness to play Russian roulette with services to the needy. So I can only lament choices that govern the church’s affairs in ways that are so at odds with the choices made by Jesus and his earliest followers.

If the Washington Archdiocese makes good on its threat to close up shop on Catholic Charities in order to preserve “the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely,” I can’t help but wonder, what religion is it they’re practicing? And how likely are the homeless to say in appreciative wonder, “See, how they love”?

David R. Weiss is the author of To the Tune of a Welcoming God: Lyrical Reflections on Sexuality, Spirituality and the Wideness of God’s Welcome (Langdon Street Press, 2008, www.davidrweiss.com). A theologian, writer, poet and hymnist committed to doing “public theology” around issues of sexuality, justice, diversity, and peace, David lives in St. Paul and is a self-employed speaker and writer on the intersection of sexuality and spirituality. You can reach him at www.davidrweiss.com.

For more of David Weiss at The Wild Reed, see:
Coming Out: An Act of Holiness
Making Love, Giving Life
The Real Sodomites: The Proponents of Proposition 8
Can You Hear Me, Yet, My Friend?

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
D.C. Council Calls Archdiocesan’s Bluff

Ian McKellen's Two Great Achievements: Playing Gandalf and Coming Out

2009-11-15T21:25:00.000-08:00

.

My friend Rick recently alerted me to a great interview in the Los Angeles Times with British actor Ian McKellen, currently in the U.S. promoting his latest film, the TV mini-series The Prisoner. Following are excerpts from this interview that I found most interesting. Perhaps you will too.

______________________________________

Wearing glasses that magnified his famously blue eyes, McKellen leaned back against a couch, yawning as he fiddled with an empty Tic Tac box. When the topics turned personal, however – such as Hollywood’s attitude toward gays and his disillusionment with religion – he appeared to take his own admonition about candor to heart.

“I increasingly see organized religion as actually my enemy. They treat me as their enemy,” said the British actor, who came out 20 years ago. “Not all Christians, of course. Not all Jews, not all Muslims. But the leaders. . . . Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He’s basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I’m lost to God, organized religion is to blame.”

. . . If all goes right, next year [McKellen] will begin shooting two movies based on The Hobbit, the long-awaited prequels to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. McKellen confirmed that he’s in talks to reprise the role of Gandalf the wizard, a part he’s eager to return to, under certain conditions.

“I don’t want it to take five years, for example,” he said. (For the Rings trilogy, he spent a year shooting in New Zealand.)

After a storied stage career, McKellen is at ease with the fact that his name is forever wedded to the J.R.R. Tolkien character.

“I should be so lucky to be in a film that’s been seen by more people than any other film,” he said. “Of course, it’s likely that more people would know me for that than for playing Macbeth. I might be worried if I didn’t think Lord of the Rings was a wonderful film and Gandalf wasn’t one that I was proud of.”

In fact, “when I’ve been asked what should be on my gravestone,” he noted, “I’ve said: ‘Here lies Gandalf. He came out.’ Two big achievements.”

McKellen revealed his sexuality at age 49 on a British radio show during a debate about anti-gay legislation. He says it’s the most important thing he’s ever done, and when he’s not acting, he spends much of his time lobbying for gay rights. He visits schools in England as part of a program to prevent gay bullying. When he finds a Bible in a hotel room, he rips out the passage in Leviticus that condemns homosexuality.

In his view, Hollywood still hasn’t come that far in its attitude toward gays.

“The conventional wisdom is that if you are gay, you cannot play the romantic straight lead in a movie,” he said. “They’d rather have ‘don't ask, don’t tell.’ The proposition from Mephistopheles as you sign the agreement that you will become a Hollywood star is that you will lie about yourself. That’s selling your soul. This business may involve disguise, but it’s about telling the truth. And I don’t think a closeted actor in this day and age can act as well as an actor who is out.”

Despite his strong sentiments, McKellen insists that he’s “a very shy person.”

Coming out gave him more confidence, but “it is not easy being something that society for generations has taught everybody is beyond the pale.” To this day, he sometimes ducks questions from cabbies about whether he is married, exhausted by the notion of explaining himself to a stranger.

“There are still times in my life where I pull back from being totally honest,” he said quietly, “and I can’t imagine a single straight person who would understand that.”

To read Matea Gold’s interview with Ian McKellen in its entirety, click here.

For more of McKellen thoughts about coming out, see the previous Wild Reed post, My Advent Prayer for the Church.

Randi Reitan on What Makes a Family Strong

2009-11-15T14:02:00.000-08:00

My friend Randi (pictured at right with her husband Phil and their son Jacob) has a powerful “counterpoint” commentary in today’s Star Tribune. It’s written in response to columnist Katherine Kersten’s November 8 commentary, “The Perilous, Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage.”

__________________________________

Kersten Doesn’t Know What Goes Into
Making a Family Strong

I was organizing the dresser where I keep many of our treasured keepsakes, and I came across our wedding bulletin. Our vows were written out in the order of service. They were not the traditional vows used by most couples at that time but ones we found in a contemporary service. We called them our promises.

“I will be faithful to you and honest with you; I will respect, trust, help, and care for you; I will share my life with you; I will forgive you as we have been forgiven; and I will try with you to better understand ourselves, the world, and God; through the best and the worst of what is to come as long as we live.”

I thought of those promises as I read Katherine Kersten’s Nov. 8 commentary on marriage. They were promises made by two people who dearly loved each other. They were promises made to help our love grow and to build a foundation that would firmly support our new lives as a family. Whether we had children or not, those promises helped us focus on the respect, the trust, the understanding and the love it would take to make our new family strong.

It is time the Kerstens of this world actually look at what makes a family strong. It is the ideals of respect, forgiveness, trust and love. The words Kersten wrote centered on condemnation, fear and judgment. When you treat a whole segment of the people with such contempt, you are not building a just and good society. You are making it unstable in a most destructive way.

We have attended many wedding ceremonies for gay couples. Their love and desire to build a strong family together is what Kersten fails to see or refuses to see. The love and dreams of those couples were just like ours.

I hope there will come a day when Kersten shows respect for all of God’s creation. I hope there will come a day she understands that the gay community should have the same rights to marriage. If for no other reason, she should understand they are citizens of a nation where all people are to be treated equally.

I long for the day my gay son finds a person to love as much as I loved my Philip when I spoke those promises 37 years ago. I simply want for Jacob what has been most precious for me, and I don’t want the Kerstens of this world to stand in the way of his love or his future family.

- Randi Reitan

History Repeating

2009-11-13T20:00:00.000-08:00

This evening’s Wild Reed “Friday Night Music Spot” highlights yet another unusual musical collaboration. (You may recall that previous such collaborations highlighted here at The Wild Reed have involved the likes of Larry Adler and Kate Bush, Loretta Lynn and Jack White, and Pet Shop Boys and Dusty Springfield).

Tonight it’s the Propellerheads and Shirley Bassey.

Bassey is perhaps best known for the three James Bond theme songs she recorded in the 1960s and ’70s (Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever, and Moonraker). Her career, however, encompasses considerably much more than these particular recordings. In fact, she holds the record for the longest span of Top 40 hits in UK chart history. Her latest album, The Performance, has just been released in the UK. It features songs written by Manic Street Preachers, Gary Barlow, KT Tunstall, Pet Shop Boys, Kaiser Chiefs, Rufus Wainwright, John Barry, and Don Black. (For a review of this album, click here.)

In 1997, the Propellerheads, a British big beat music band made up of electronic producers Will White and Alex Gifford, invited Bassey to collaborate with them on the wonderful (and highly danceable) “History Repeating.”

The word is about, there’s something evolving
Whatever may come, the world keeps revolving
They say the next big thing is here
That the revolution’s near
But to me it seems quite clear
That it’s all just a little bit of history repeating

The newspapers shout a new style is growing
But it don’t know if it’s coming or going
There is fashion, there is fad
Some is good, some is bad
And the joke is rather sad
That it’s all just a little bit of history repeating

And I’ve seen it before
And I’ll see it again
Yes, I’ve seen it before
Just little bits of history repeating

Some people don’t dance, if they don’t know who’s singing
Why ask your head, it’s your hips that are swinging
Life’s for us to enjoy
Woman, man, girl and boy
Feel the pain, feel the joy
And side step the little bits of history repeating

Notes Wikipedia: “Bassey released a new recording [in 1997], “History Repeating,” written for her by the Propellerheads and scoring a #1 on the UK dance music chart. The single reached the top five in Spain, Italy and Germany, and the top ten of the US dance chart. The liner notes of the Propellerheads’ album Decksandrumsandrockandroll included the lines ‘We would like to extend our maximum respect to Shirley Bassey for honouring us with her performance. We are still in shock ...’ ”

In 1998, the Miami Times reported the following on Bassey’s thoughts on “History Repeating” and its recording.

The song, a catchy, synthesizer-thumping dance number, has been all the rave in clubs in Miami as well as around the globe. Bassey says she was asked to participate after lead Propellerhead Alex Gifford wrote the song with her in mind. “He said he was asleep, and he thought about me, and these words came out,” she explains. “And I asked, what’s a 35-year-old man doing thinking about a grandmother? I couldn’t imagine,” she laughs. A demo was sent to Bassey and the rest, as the song says, is history - but not without some initial reluctance on her part.

“When they sent it to me, I heard it and I was dancing around. I loved it. But I didn’t think it was for me.” Bassey felt the song was a little too rock and roll, more appropriate for Tina Turner. “It wasn’t Bassey,” she crows, matter-of-factly. “But, ah! Thank God they didn’t listen to me! They wrote it for Shirley!”

Bassey hit the studio a few weeks later and made the song her own, with a little steering from Alex. “He said, ‘This is not the way I want it. Can you go a little lower?’” she says, bringing her voice down a few notes. She insists there was no temperament at the session, and she “went right down there -- a different alley -- and that voice came out and that’s exactly what they wanted. And within an hour, it was all over. I walked away, we kissed and hugged, and that was it. I didn’t think anymore of it. And it was a hit.” Bassey now performs the song in concert (“I have to! Everybody is waiting for it. They don’t think I’m going to do it, but when I do, they howl!”).

Naturally, a video followed, though Bassey was less than enthralled with the process. “Well, at first they mentioned it, but I didn’t think anything would come of it,” she quips. “So when I did do the video, my God, it was so hard. They are so long, and they take forever. I stood there from 1:00 p.m. until midnight in this dress that I couldn’t lift up. I couldn’t even go for a pee.”

For more of Shirley Bassey at The Wild Reed, see:
The Rhythm Divine
The Living Tree

Musical artists previously featured at The Wild Reed:
Stephen Gately, Nat King Cole, Enrique Iglesias, Helen Reddy, Australian Crawl, PJ and Duncan, Cass Elliot, The Church, Pet Shop Boys and Dusty Springfield, Wall of Voodoo, Stephen “Tin Tin” Duffy, Pink Floyd, Kate Ceberano, Judith Durham, Wendy Matthews, Buffy Sainte-Marie, 1927, Mavis Staples, Maxwell, Joan Baez, Dave Stewart & Friends, Tee Set, Darren Hayes, Suede, Wet, Wet, Wet, Engelbert Humperdinck, The Cruel Sea, Shirley Bassey, Loretta Lynn & Jack White, Maria Callas, Foo Fighters, Rosanne Cash, Jenny Morris, Scissor Sisters, Kate Bush, Rufus Wainwright, and Dusty Springfield.

D.C. Council Calls Archdiocese's Bluff

2009-11-13T07:00:00.000-08:00

The wonderful Pam’s House Blend has posted a number of responses from Washington, D.C. Council members to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington D.C.’s threat to stop taking District contract money for its Catholic Charities organization if the D.C. Council passes a proposed marriage equality law.

Tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care could be affected if the Archdiocese goes through with its threat. The bill that church officials are upset about is up for a vote before the D.C. Council next month. It states that religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings, but they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. It’s been reported that Church officials are fearful that they could be forced to extend employee benefits and open adoption services to same-sex couples. Accordingly, they’ve stated that would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

Notice it’s the Archdiocese and not Catholic Charities issuing this outrageous ultimatum. I know people who work in Catholic Charities - both here in the Twin Cities and in Washington, D.C. - and there is no way they would allow politics to come between the services they provide and the people in need whom they serve. Clearly it’s a different matter for members of the church’s clerical caste - removed as so many of them are from the realities of life, be these realities concerned with gay people or the plight of the poor.

Following is how members of Washington, D.C. Council have responded to the Archdiocese’s threat.

In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as “somewhat childish.” Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands. “They don’t represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure,” said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary committee, said the council “will not legislate based on threats.” “The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle,” Mendelson said. “There were many people back in the 1950s and ’60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God.”

Catania, who said he has been the biggest supporter of Catholic Charities on the council, said he is baffled by the church’s stance. From 2006 through 2008, Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars’ worth this year through his committee. “If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes,” Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Cheh said she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance. “Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?” Cheh asked. “I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat.”

Meanwhile, Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for All D.C. Families accused the church of trying to “blackmail the city.” “The issue here is they are using public funds, and to allow people to discriminate with public money is unacceptable,” Rosenstein said.

It’s a view shared by others. Blogger Michael B. Hamer, for instance, writes: “If the Church wants to accept public money, it needs to obey the civil non-discrimination laws. Otherwise, the Church is free to stop accepting public money if it wants to discriminate. The Church does NOT get to have its cake and eat it too.”

Janet Shan writes at Black Political Thought: “Sorry, but the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. This amounts to nothing more than strong-arming by the church. If I were a council member waiting to cast a vote, I would vote to end the relationship with the church than let them dictate what the city needs to do. It’s all about money for the church, not principle. Why hold the social services for the homeless hostage just because you can’t accept the reality that gays and lesbians deserve rights too?”

Michael A. Jones notes at GayRights.Change.org: “I guess the Catholic Church’s commitment to the poor is only skin deep. For the Catholic Church to threaten the lives of homeless people and others who depend on church social services just to gain political points on the issue of gay marriage is sad, sorry, and a sign that no religious institution in the country is willing to stand in the way of civil rights for gays and lesbians more than the Catholic Church.”

The Rev. Dennis W. Wiley, co-chair of Clergy United for Marriage Equality and the pastor of Covenant Baptist Church, is quoted in the New York Times as saying: “The Catholic Church hierarchy is at a crossroads. They must decide whether they are in the charity business for charity’s sake, or if imposing their will on the D.C. City Council and the citizens of the district is their primary interest.”

“Jake,” meanwhile, left a comment on the Joe My God blog, stating: “I’m surprised it’s taken [Catholic officials] so long to announce that their hatred for gay people is so pathologically all-consuming that they’re willing to punish the poor and the homeless over it.”

Pam’s House Blend also shares the following which I find interesting:

Anti-equality zealots are fond of lying that Catholic Charities in Massachusetts were forced to abandon adoption services after the advent of marriage equality in that state. The truth is that Catholic Charities choose to abandon adoption services, for which they received state money, rather than abide by the state anti-discrimination law to which that state money bound them.

Amusingly, Catholic Charities actually had a history of adopting out kids to gay parents, but the church hierarchy apparently decided to shut down the entire operation for dramatic effect rather than continue with business as usual: placing needy children with adoptive parents regardless of sexual orientation. The Church chose to cease their mission and withdraw even further from normal society, and as far as I can tell life still goes happily on without them in Massachusetts.

I can’t image that the citizens of D.C. – including the Catholic citizens – are in the the least bit impressed by the tantrum of Roman Catholic church officials. If these officials are not interested in trying to find common ground and resolving this problem through genuine dialogue, but are instead insistent on simply issuing ultimatums as if it were still the Middle Ages, then let them go I say.

I’m sure there are plenty of other social service agencies willing and able to pick up the D.C. council contracts. And Catholics who wish to help the poor and needy can do so by funding, supporting and/or volunteering with a host of other groups – religious or non-religious. I’m sure the vast majority of these groups would never consider using the poor in the same scandalous way that the Washington, D.C. Archdiocese is doing. And if they were to do so, let them go too.

Humanity has progressed too far with regards to basic fairness, equality, and compassion to be held back by the likes of those stunted individuals calling the shots and making the threats in such crudely self-serving places as the chancery of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.

Recommended Off-site Links:
Catholic Church Gives D.C. Ultimatum - Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein (Washington Post, November 12, 2009).
New Turn in Debate Over Law on Marriage - Ian Urbina (New York Times, November 12, 2009).
Catholic Charities, Gays, and D.C.’s Poor - Thomas J. Reese, SJ (Washington Post, November 13, 2009).
Exclusionary Politics or Care for the Poor?: Reflections on the Eroded Moral Authority of the U.S. Catholic Bishops - William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, November 12, 2009).
Why Is It Only Some Government Programs Are Subject to the Political Effects of Abortion and Sexual Politics? - Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, November 13, 2009).
Compare and Contrast - Eduardo Peñalver (Commonweal, November 13, 2009).
Two Catholic Bishops, Conscience, and the Common Good - Paula Ruddy (Progressive Catholic Voice, June 14, 2009).

A Return to the Spirit

2009-11-12T07:00:00.000-08:00

Two renowned authors remind us
what religion is really all about.

Theologian and author Harvey Cox (pictured at right) was recently in the Twin Cities speaking about his new book, The Future of Faith, in the lecture series known as the Westminster Town Hall Forum. Although I was unable to attend, my friends Paula, Bernie, and Eileen heard Cox speak, and spoke highly of the ideas and insights he shared.

In the October 20 issue of the Christian Century, Episcopal priest, religious history professor, and author Randall Balmer reviewed Cox’sThe Future of Faith. Here’s what Balmer says about the book’s overall thesis.

_________________________________

Cox ushers the reader on an excursion through church history, which he divides into three eras: the Age of Faith, the Age of Belief, and the Age of Spirit.

. . . Cox admires the early years of Christianity, which, he says, had “no standardized theology, no single pattern of governance, no uniform liturgy, and no commonly accepted scripture.” More important, the early church had no “clerical caste” during this Age of Faith, which lasted until early in the fourth century, when Constantine converted to Christianity.

The identification of religion with empire triggered the transition from faith to belief, as a clerical elite with dubious claims (Cox says) to apostolic authority sought to enforce uniformity of belief.

“This tendency to replicate the structure of empire,” writes Cox, “helps explain why so much of the Christian movement, which began as the persecuted victim of the Roman empire and provided an alternative to it, then became a sycophantic mimic of that empire and finally its obsequious acolyte.”

During the Age of Belief, which has prevailed (with some exceptions) to the present, Christianity “curdled into a top-heavy edifice defined by obligatory beliefs enforced by a hierarchy.” Cox understands belief as the adherence to propositional truth that forms the basis for fundamentalism: “Faith had been coarsened into belief, and Christianity has been hobbled by this distortion ever since.”

Whereas early Christians allowed for multiple understandings and expressions of the faith, Christianity in this Age of Belief demanded conformity. Christianity, “a loose network of local congregations, with varied forms of leadership, congealed into a rigid class structure with a privileged clerical caste at the top ruling over an increasingly disenfranchised laity on the bottom.” Women, “who played such a vital leadership role in the earliest days, were pushed to the underside and the edges.”

But even amid the theological sludge of the Age of Belief, various adventurers pushed their way to the surface. Cox cites the mystics and the Pentecostals (though he neglects the Camisards). “Mystics always make prelates nervous, “Cox writes, “but they are always with us.”

Due in part to the vision and courage of these dissenters, Cox believes, Christianity now stands on the cusp of the Age of Spirit, which is characterized by a return to faith over belief, a renewed concern for the poor, and an openness to the Spirit.

Cox insists that the real catalyst is the shifting of the center of Christianity from the West to Africa, Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific region. “In those countries where the clerical leadership clings to the older model, the churches are empty,” he writes. “But in those areas of the world where creeds and hierarchies have been set aside to make way for the Spirit, like the stone rolled away from Christ’s grave in the Easter story, one senses life and energy.”

________________________________

Two points: First, Cox’s framework reminds me somewhat of Karl Rahner’s three-epoch theory of Christian history, a theory succinctly summarized by theologian Terry Dosh in the April 2008 issue of The Progressive Catholic Voice.

Second, one doesn’t only have to look abroad for evidence of what Cox describes as an emerging “life and energy” within Catholicism. I’m fortunate to be part of the Spirit of St. Stephen’s Catholic Community – a vibrant intentional Catholic community that was formed after a large number of parishioners were compelled to move out of the South Minneapolis parish of St. Stephen’s after the chancery ordered that the parish conform its various liturgies to the rubrics of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). These liturgies had, over the past 40 years, evolved in ways that made the chancery uncomfortable. They had, for example, evolved to in ways that saw the introduction of women altar servers, inclusive language, lay homilists, an understanding of the priesthood of the people, and the welcoming of LGBT people.

The Spirit of St. Stephen’s continues to thrive (a second weekend liturgy will soon be offered), which is more than can be said about the parish of St. Stephen’s. What I believe we’re witnessing in cases like the Spirit of St. Stephen’s and St. Mary’s in Brisbane, Australia, is a clear example of the “return to faith over belief” that Cox writes about.

I think much of the current tension within Roman Catholicism – and indeed wider Christianity – comes from the fact that we’re living through this transition from (to use Cox’s terminology) the Age of Belief to the Age of Spirit. My concern is that because Roman Catholicism still operates as a feudal caste system, those within the tradition open to being active participants in this transition will be simply shown the door, and Roman Catholicism will be reduced to, in the words of David Carlin, the status of a “minor and relatively insignificant sect.”

In reviewing Carlin’s book, The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America, Russell Shaw summarizes the grim scenario put forth by Carlin as follows: “[So-called] traditionalists will have won the internal Catholic power struggle, says Carlin, mainly because the progressives will have drifted away. But in the end, the small band of traditionalists will find themselves isolated in ‘a new Catholic quasi-ghetto,’ with about as much influence on the culture as the Amish and Hasidic Jews have now.”

Yet, as I’ve noted previously, I’m not in the least bit interested in circling the wagons and living in any type of ghetto. Neither are the Catholics I know. Yet a ghetto is exactly what the current clerical leadership seems intent on creating for us. I’m drawn instead to a Church open to the Spirit, a Church that recognizes and celebrates itself as the Risen Body of Christ, alive and afoot in the world; a Church unafraid of journeying and engagement, of growth and change.

Interestingly, though not really surprisingly given that we are indeed in the midst of a transition or paradigm shift in religious consciousness, Harvey Cox isn’t the only person speaking about moving beyond an understanding and expression of religion that’s all about the need to define, defend, and divide.

In her latest book, The Case for God, Karen Armstrong (pictured at left) contends that religion is more about practice than belief; more about orthopraxy than orthodoxy.

Writes Armstrong:

Religion as defined by the great sages of India, China, and the Middle East was not a notional activity but a practical one; it did not require belief in a set of doctrines but rather hard, disciplined work, without which any religious teaching remained opaque and incredible.

True. But is it always that easy to separate belief from practice? Don’t our beliefs in large part shape what we do? Yes, but then perhaps Armstrong would argue that our beliefs should likewise be always open to being shaped by our ongoing practices within the context of an ever-changing world.

Elsewhere in her book, Armstrong observes:

A deliberate and principled reticence about God . . . was a constant theme not only in Christianity but in the other major faith traditions until the rise of modernity in the West. People believed that God exceeded our thoughts and concepts and could be known only by dedicated practice. We have lost sight of this important insight, and this, I believe, is one of the reasons why so many Western people find the concept of God so difficult today.

In discussing Armstrong’s latest work, Brian McGrath Davis notes:

For most of Western history “belief” has meant nothing like what it means today. Today, when someone asks me if I believe in God, for example, they are asking if I assent to the proposed verity or the factual existence of God — and usually it is in reference to a very specific understanding of that God. Similarly, if I'm asked if I have “faith in Christ”, the question is whether I agree with the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was divine, died on a cross, and was raised from the dead, or some form of that story. In both cases, questions of “belief” and questions of “faith” require answers of thought. Yet, as surprising as it may seem, these understandings are relatively recent. “Faith” has its etymological roots in the Greek pistis, “trust; commitment; loyalty; engagement.” Jerome translated pistis into the Latin fides (“loyalty”) and credo (which was from cor do, “I give my heart”). The translators of the first King James Bible translated credo into the English “belief,” which came from the Middle English bileven (“to prize; to value; to hold dear”). Faith in God, therefore, was a trust in and loyal commitment to God. Belief in Christ was an engaged commitment to the call and ministry of Jesus; it was a commitment to do the gospel, to be a follower of Christ. In neither case were “belief” or “faith” a matter of intellectual assent.

This, of course, correlates with Harvey Cox’s contention that during much of Christian history, “faith had been coarsened into belief, and Christianity has been hobbled by this distortion ever since.”

In conclusion, I share the following excerpt from Christopher Hart’s July 5, 2009, London Times review of Armstrong’s The Case for God. Enjoy!

___________________________________________

Both Bible-bashing fundamentalists and dogmatic atheists have a similar idea of what “God” means, [Armstrong] points out, and it is an absurdly crude one. They seem to think the word denotes a large, powerful man we can’t see. Such a theology is, she says, “somewhat infantile.” The only difference between the fundamentalists and the atheists is that the former affirm this God’s existence, the latter deny it and try to demolish it.

The new atheists, Armstrong says with impeccable restraint, “are not theologically literate”, and “their polemic…lacks intellectual depth”. In contrast, she usefully reminds us, both Galileo and Darwin, supposed icons of modern atheism, were adamant that their discoveries had no impact on religious faith. Equally humble in a different way, Socrates pushed rationality and intellect to the point where they fail: you reach his famous aporia, and realise you really know nothing at all. The new atheists do the opposite. Their rationality and intellect bring them to a place of absolute knowledge, a height from where they survey all history, and pronounce with finality on pretty much everything. Never trust anyone who knows this much.

Yet for centuries, ideas of God and the Bible were far more subtle and profound than today’s atheism or fundamentalism can conceive. “We have lost the ‘knack’ for religion,” says Armstrong. It is as if the success of science in the material world has rewired our brains, made us tone-deaf to myth. “Is it true?” we keep asking, meaning, “Did it really happen? Is it literally true? If not, we’re not interested.”

She draws on 2,000 years of Christian theology and mysticism to demonstrate rich alternative ideas of the divine. Back in the 4th century AD, long before Wittgenstein and Derrida, Bishop Basil of Caesarea understood all about the limits of language, and stated them rather more clearly, too. “Thought cannot travel outside was, nor imagination beyond beginning.” God is, by definition, infinitely beyond human language. Earlier still, the Christian scholar Origen (185-254) discussed the “incongruities and impossibilities” in scripture. The fact that Dawkins et al think that pointing out the Bible’s imperfections undermine Jewish or Christian belief only demonstrates their ignorance of the traditions they presume to undermine. Of course it’s not meant to be understood literally, the early Christians seem to sigh across the centuries.

Armstrong further shows how even the words “I believe” have changed, and become scientised, to mean “I assert these propositions to be empirically correct.” Yet the original Greek pisteuo means something much more like “I give my heart and my loyalty.” In the gospels, she says, quoting the great German theologian Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus himself sees God not as “an object of thought or speculation, but as an existential demand.”

Yet thanks to the misapplication of science to religious faith, we remain literal-minded and spiritually immature, frightened of the silence and solitude in which the Ancient of Days, the Unnameable, might be experienced, though never understood. We need to think of God not as a being, but as Being. Armstrong points us towards a vast tradition in all religions in which, in essence, you can ultimately say nothing about God, since God is no thing. In Islam, all speaking or theorising about the nature of Allah is mere zannah, fanciful - guesswork. Instead, try “silence, reverence and awe,” she says; or music, ritual, the steady habit of compassion, and a graceful acceptance of mystery and “unknowing.”

As a haunting example, she recounts this unforgettable story. Among the many Jews who lost their faith in Auschwitz, there was one group who decided to put God on trial. How could an omnipotent and benevolent deity allow this horror? Either he didn’t exist, or he wasn’t worthy of their love anyway. “They condemned God to death. The presiding rabbi pronounced the verdict, then went on calmly to announce that it was time for the evening prayer.” God is dead — but, Armstrong suggests, all we have lost is a mistaken and limited notion of God anyway: a big, powerful, invisible man who does stuff. Instead, we need to recapture the spiritual imagination, sensitivity and meditative humility of the pre-moderns, who she so admires.

The Case for God simmers with a quiet spiritual optimism. It is dense and brilliant, chastening and consoling. Whether or not it sells as well as the latest Hitchens or Dawkins will be a measure of us, not the book.

See also the related Wild Reed posts:
In the Garden of Spirituality - Paul Collins
In the Garden of Spirituality - Jesse Lava
In the Garden of Spirituality - Adrian Smith
In the Garden of Spirituality - Patrick Carroll
In the Garden of Spirituality - Joan Timmerman
Conversing and Arguing with the Theology of Philip Pullman
Darwin’s Darkest Hour
Pan’s Labyrinth: Critiquing the Cult of Unquestioning Obedience
Time for a Church for Grown-Ups
Dialogue is Key in Moving Beyond Theological Impasses
Is Dialogue Always Possible?
Keeping the Spark Alive: Conversing with “Modern Mystic” Chuck Lofy
The Holarchical Church: Not a Pyramid But a Web of Relationships
Bishop Gumbleton: “It Isn’t the Church You’re Being Asked to Say Yes To - It’s Jesus”

Opening image: Michael J. Bayly.

Twin Cities-based CCCR Goes Global

2009-11-11T07:00:00.000-08:00

Well, not really.

However, our reforming work within the local church of St. Paul-Minneapolis has been noticed recently by bloggers in other countries. That’s kinda like going global, isn’t it?

The CC-what?

For the uninitiated, CCCR stands for Catholic Coalition for Church Reform. It’s a coalition of reform-minded individuals and organizations that envisions and works toward a Church - fully alive, locally and universally - that radiates Jesus’ core teaching of radical equality, unabashed inclusivity, and transforming love.

Drawing on the insights and writings of the Asian Catholic bishops, we see the church as being a “communion of communities” based upon acceptance and characterized by fundamental equality among all members. Accordingly, it is participatory and collaborative in nature, embodies a dialogical spirit, and serves as a prophetic sign.

Manifesting God’s love in the world

I’m honored to serve as one of the three co-chairs of CCCR. The coalition’s primary focus at the moment is to inspire and prepare local Catholics to participate in a September 2010 synod entitled “Claiming Our Place at the Table.”

The title for this synod stems, in part, from our understanding of ourselves as being called as the baptized to be the church and to live its mission of manifesting God’s love in the world. Yet at the same time we are deeply concerned by the numerous disconnects we see between the church’s mission of embodying God’s love (as discerned in the life and teachings of Jesus) and certain practices of the institutional component of the church. We do not see these practices fulfilling the mission, basically because they are practices that are not aligned with the gospel message, i.e., with Jesus’ example of radical equality, unabashed inclusivity, and transforming love.

Our response to all of this? Well, we’ve taken the initiative to establish a number of work/study groups – each focused on an area of disconnect, of non-alignment. These areas include: Church Authority and Governance, Bishop Selection, Clericalism, Communication in a Polarized Community, Church as a Community of Equals, Catholic/Christian Identity, Catholic Spirituality, Emerging Church, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, Social justice, Faith Formation of Children and Youth.

At our 2010 Synod the work/study groups will present recommendations for church practices and policies that align with the Gospel message. Those present at the synod will also work together to develop an ongoing strategy within the local church to communicate these recommendations – recommendations for the building of a Catholic culture of . . . yes, you’ve guessed it! . . . radical equality, unabashed inclusivity, and transforming love. By changing church practices we envision transforming the culture of our local church into one that faithfully lives out its mission.

Implications for the wider church

The work of CCCR that I’ve just described has, as I mentioned earlier, been getting some coverage well beyond the local church of the Twin Cities area. The Canadian-based New Catholic Times, for instance, recently re-published CCCR co-chair Paula Ruddy’s Progressive Catholic Voice article on the second joint meeting of CCCR’s work/study groups.

Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, Terence Weldon on his excellent blogsite Queering the Church has recently written about the work of CCCR and, in particular, the work/study group on sexual orientation and gender identity that I’m facilitating. He also references Paula’s wonderful Progressive Catholic Voice article.

Terence views CCCR as a “fascinating and important process,” one that is centered on “reality-based theology” and which, accordingly, has important implications for the wider church. He then outlines the work of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Work/Study Group, noting that:

Michael’s small group is just one part of a wider programme in Minneapolis. We can now see that it is not . . . narrow in focus – but is it nevertheless parochial? Why do I suggest that it is of significance for the rest of us? Well, because it is just one model, one way of doing something that we should all be engaged in, but too few of us are. This is not, in Paula Ruddy’s words, an example of a group of laity waiting patiently and anxiously for change to be “initiated from the power positions a the top.” (In that [arch]diocese, such is most unlikely to come too soon.) Instead, they are recognising the reality on the ground, and have recognised that indeed they are themselves “in charge of the future . . . [that] every person has power; every action counts.”

Many people will be shocked at this apparent rebellion against the clerical establishment (I now longer call them the “hierarchy”), but this reaction is inappropriate – it is an expression of exactly what the Church has told us to do. It is well-known that the Vatican Council resolved there should be greater lay participation in the work of the Church – but failed to create suitable structures to provide for this increased participation. Since then, the established interests in the power structures have not displayed any intention of completing this unfinished business. Many of us of course, are quite happy, and would rather sit back and wait for priests to do the work and make all the decisions. Others are impatient and frustrated, recognising that we have unique gifts and experiences not shared by a celibate ordained clergy, and that with the critical shortage of priests, we have no alternative but to use all the talents we have. But whether we have been given the tools or not, it remains a task that was entrusted to us by the Council. If we have not been given the tools, we have no choice but to make them for ourselves.

What the CCCR have done is a good demonstration of what Len Swidler of the ARCC describes in New Catholic Times as implementing Vatican II from Below.

. . . [Swidler’s parish-based program and the work of CCCR] are two very different examples, both from within the formal bounds of the Catholic church structures. There are many more possible approaches.

By now, we have moved from a reference to a narrowly focused, local initiative to argue that as an example of what should be happening universally, it is in fact far from as parochial as it seems. It has significance for us all. In Michael’s words: “By changing church practices we envision transforming the culture of our local church into one that faithfully lives out its mission. In doing all of this we aim to model a type of participation led by a coalition of the baptized that will serve as a template for church reform within dioceses across the country.”

And who knows? With continued support by folks like Terence, who recognize the need for reform throughout the universal church, the template offered by CCCR may well become known to - and resonate with - Catholics beyond the U.S.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
An Exciting Endeavor
Many Voices, One Church
“Something Exciting and Joyous”
A Time to Re-think the Basis and Repair the Damage
The Call to Be Dialogical Catholics
Staying on Board
Clearing Away the Debris
Rosemary Haughton and the “True Catholic Enterprise”
What It Means to Be Catholic

Recommended Off-site Link:
The Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR)

Responding to Katherine Kersten

2009-11-10T07:00:00.000-08:00

Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten recently shared her views on same-gender marriage. She contends that it will destroy the “institution of marriage” and “repudiate time-honored ideas of social organization.”

Okay, here’s what I don’t get: If folks like Kersten are so intent on protecting “marriage,” then why don’t they lobby for “civil unions” or some other alternative for gay people? That to me would be a win/win solution. They get to hold onto their so-called “traditional” definition of marriage, while gay folks get to have their loving, committed relationships affirmed and get to share in the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of what straight people get to call “civil marriage.”

I sense, however, that in Kersten’s view there can never be any type of “win” for gay people. It’s no surprise then that she and others (including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) make absolutely no attempt to acknowledge or accommodate the experiences, needs, and/or feelings of gay people. Accordingly, there always seems to be a callousness – a mean-spiritedness – in what they say and write about this issue. Their output lacks awareness of anything beyond a very narrow and rigid ideological framework. It therefore lacks compassion and wisdom. It does, however, appeal to a certain base element - a fear-based base element - within many people. I don’t believe it’s a place from which the followers of Jesus should operate. After all, he was quite clear: “Be not afraid.”

Anyway, I appreciate Dave Mindeman’s response to Kersten – a response originally published at Minnesota Network for Progressive Action (mnpACT.org) and reprinted below.

__________________________________

Kersten Confuses Definition of Marriage with Family

By Dave Mindeman
Minnesota Network for Progressive Action
November 8, 2009

Katherine Kersten writes a very informative column. She is helping me understand why so many people are afraid of gay marriage. Or at least she is helping me understand why people interpret their feelings as fear.

One thing is for certain, Katherine Kersten must live life on an incline wearing roller skates because everything is a “slippery slope.” It is uncanny how she correlates her slanted viewpoint as the clarion call for the destruction of everyone’s moral values.

This week’s column is back on her favorite topic – gay marriage. The first thing she does is make up her definition of marriage.

Marriage is a universal human institution. Across the world and throughout history, it's been exclusively male-female. That’s not because of anti-gay bigotry, but because marriage is anchored in a primal biological and social fact: Sex between men and women creates new human beings.

Actually, the legal term of marriage is really a product of the mid-19th century. Licenses were required to make sure people didn’t bond themselves in the unnatural act of a mixed-race marriage. (So you see, marriage licensing was spawned in bigotry). Prior to that, people would generally make an announcement, get the permission of the families, and head to the church.

But I don’t believe there is any legal qualification that a marriage must be about biology. When children are involved, it’s not about marriage . . . it’s about family. You actually don’t have to have a license to be a family. Families know they are families. Whether it is a couple with 13 kids, a single parent with one child, a married couple who can’t have children, or a gay couple living alone or with adopted children . . . they are all families. No licenses but no questions about what they are either.

Kersten mixes that all up in her definition of marriage. She has decided that the purpose of marriage is child rearing....

The primary purpose of marriage is to ensure the best environment for rearing the children born of male-female sexual acts. Marriage channels men's and women's sexual attraction into productive ends, and harnesses the male sex drive by binding men to the mothers of their children.

Again, Kersten mixes up marriage with family. The real purpose of a marriage is to vow a commitment to a monogamous relationship. You are committing yourself to one person, till death do you part. Children can be a product of that relationship, but again, that is not about the marriage, that is about the family. A marriage license that defines this monogamous relationship can apply to bi-racial couples (which we now generally accept) or it can apply to committed gay couples (which we are still working on). A monogamous sexual relationship doesn’t have to come to “productive ends.” Many heterosexual couples live their entire lives without having children – are they any less married?

But Kersten makes another accusation....

Same-sex marriage may not change the lives of John and Mary. But their children and grandchildren will bear the brunt of this cultural revolution. Today, only 59 percent of children live with their married biological or adoptive mother and father – a result of divorce, cohabitation and rising out-of-wedlock births. If same-sex marriage prevails, the marriage culture is likely to erode further.

I’m trying to follow the logic here. Kersten is concerned that only 59% of children live with their married parents. So if we legalize same-sex marriages, which cannot biologically reproduce but could give a loving adoptive home, we are eroding that furthur? How?

But Kersten isn’t done yet. Next she blames gay couples (whom she forbids the right to marry) for a laissez-faire attitude about marriage in general.

In European countries and American states where same-sex marriage is legal, the proportion of gays choosing to marry is well below that of the heterosexual population. In America, about two-thirds of gay couples who seek legal recognition are lesbians. The larger society does not expect or pressure gay people to marry – for them, it's just a matter of personal preference.

And her reasoning gets weirder....

Over time, this attitude could reshape the larger institution of marriage. As social norms that have encouraged men and women to take on the hard work of raising a family unravel, heterosexual couples are less likely to see marriage as important or relevant. Increasingly, marriage is likely to become just one of many options in a lifestyle smorgasbord.

So let’s break this down. If we give gay couples the right to legally marry, their cavalier maybe-maybe not attitude about it will further erode the marriage institution. Therefore, apparently, we must keep denying them that right so that can’t choose to ignore its use.

Wow!

Katherine Kersten is an expert in her own mind. None of the things she expounds upon as “factual” have any studies or textbook backing to them. They are just her own personal opinions.

Just like our recent ancestral counterparts feared the complete degradation of society when we opened the doors to bi-racial marriage, Kersten justifies a deep seeded personal bigotry as the reason to defend a societal bias against GLBT relationships.

We simply have to be better than this.

____________________________________

Following are a few responses from the Star Tribune website to Kersten’s commentary.

Queixa writes: Your argument makes perfect sense. I agree with you one hundred percent. Therefore, I assume you support me in my goal to eliminate marriage for women over 50; to require a fertility test to both partners before issuing a marriage license; and to require the couple to sign an legally binding "Intent to Procreate" that will penalize the couple with fines and an annulment of the marriage if they do not successfully reproduce within, say, ten years. My modest proposal of additional marriage requirements would ensure that marriage is used ONLY for procreation and not just as a license for two heterosexual people to get a tax break and a slew of legal rights not available to non-procreating people.

Mikhastur writes: Ms. Kersten is so wrong, on so many levels. First, granting marriage equality to gay couples will not affect one iota how straight couples procreate. The ones who procreate within the bonds of marriage will still have the same family protections that they always have. The huge portion of them that choose to procreate outside of marriage (without any input from the gays whatsoever) will continue to do so. Second, you have utterly left children being raised by gay couples out in the legal freezing sleet. Fully 1/3 of gay couples who consider themselves married are currently raising children, according to a recent study. They parents have committed mutually committed their support and fidelity to each other for perpetuity. Why should they not receive the same legal protections as similar situated kids whose parents are straight? Third, you have utterly ignored that marriage has historically been about property (including the wife(s) and kids) rather than procreation, per se. And that currently and historically, marriage has been granted to couples who would have no way whatsoever to procreate. Forth, you have directly stated that granting marriage equality to same sex couples would somehow perpetrate grievous damage on our society. But you have failed to substantiate this allegation in any manner. Is this the best you can do?

Jhal7181 writes: All I can say is wow to you Katherine. I respect the fact that you are writing an opinion, but I am stunned and shocked by what you are passing off as arguments for your case. . . . But most of all, I am disturbed by the fact that you made it more than clear that you simply do not respect gay relationships, and for that matter, gay people in general. . . . It is people like you with attitudes like yours that will cause much more harm to society than gay marriage ever will.

Jeffrey writes: The author says the proper question to ask is, “How will same-sex marriage harm the institution of marriage - and in the long run, all of us?” Well, what’s the answer? She doesn’t say. She makes a lot of scary predictions, none backed by facts or research. More “the sky is falling!” malarkey from a homophobe. It gets so tiresome. I hope it’s ok to ask the obvious: if she thinks marriage is anchored in procreation, why are senior citizens allowed to marry? Why is there no requirement to have children if you get married? Why is it legal to have kids out of wedlock? “Boys and girls flourish best with a married mother and father, who perform different and complementary roles in preparing them to deal with the world and the opposite sex.” I think the author reveals her bias here: moms and dads have to prepare their kids for the world AND THE OPPOSITE SEX?? Do gay children not deserve world and romance preparation?

Dbeilke writes: Infidelity and divorce are greater threats to the institution of marriage than anything else but when it comes to those things conservatives are silent. . . . [Kersten’s commentary] is just another lame attempt to defend the indefensible. I’m waiting for a good argument against gay marriage and nobody seems to be able to provide one. The truth is that it does not affect YOU so stay out of it.

Hmd2010 writes: The greatest harm to the classic heterosexual marriage is the high divorce rate. Allowing gay marriage will have no effect on this. The happiest marriages I know are between two people who love each other. The most miserable marriages I know are those that are entered into for breeding purposes. I am the child of one of those marriages, and I would have been much happier with a gay couple who loved each other as my parents than with the straight couple who ended up separated when their three lovely children did not “fix” their relationship. I love both my parents, but what where they thinking when they got married to each other? If either were gay, it would make no difference to me at all provided they loved each other. That is what marriage should be to both straight and gay couples.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Taking Kersten to Task
Patrick Ryan on the “Defense of Traditional Marriage” Argument
John Corvino on the “Always and Everywhere” Argument
Dr. Erik Steele and the “Naked Truth on Same-Sex Marriage”
The Changing Face of “Traditional Marriage”
The Same People
Love is Love
Competent Parenting Doesn’t Require “Traditional Marriage”

Lowell Erdahl on Unlearning the Things That Used to be Obvious

2009-11-09T14:35:00.000-08:00

You may recall that last month I had the honor of standing with a number of local Christian religious leaders as together we spoke at the Minnesota Capitol in support of marriage equality.

One of these leaders was Lowell O. Erdahl, bishop emeritus of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s St. Paul synod.

When I wrote about this event last month, I did not have a copy of Bishop Erdahl’s remarks. Since then, they’ve been posted on the website of Minnesota Public Radio. They are reprinted in their entirety below.

____________________________________

Unlearning the Things That Used to Be Obvious

By Lowell O. Erdahl
November 4, 2009

Five hundred years ago the great reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin were blinded by the obvious. They watched the sun and stars rise and set over what seemed a stationary earth. Furthermore, there were texts in the Bible that declared “The sun rises and the sun goes down and hurries to the place were it rises” (Ecclesiastes 1:4-5) and “The LORD ... has established the world; it shall not be moved” (Psalms 93:1).

Convinced by what was obvious in nature and clearly proclaimed in the Bible, Luther called Copernicus a fool. Calvin asked, “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?”

But they were wrong in their understanding of both the solar system and the Bible.

I, too, was blinded by the obvious. I observed that only men and women fell in love and got married. In high school I heard of some people who did same-sex stuff but I assumed that they were oversexed or goofing around. Furthermore, I learned that the Bible says that all such behavior is “an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

But I was wrong in my understanding of both homosexual humanity and the Bible.

I now thank God for gay and lesbian Christians who have been my teachers. They have introduced me to a significant segment of humanity who, through no choice of their own, are attracted to, fall in love with and desire to live in lifelong partnership with persons of the same sex.

I’m also grateful for scholars such as Martti Nissinen, author of Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, who have taught me that those condemning texts relate to lustful, exploitive same-sex activity, such as temple prostitution, abuse of prisoners and pederasty, but say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Nor do they say anything concerning people in lifelong, life-giving, committed relationships. For them we turn to other texts, such as Romans 13:8-10, which says:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

I regret my previous blindness and the harm I have caused. I’m grateful that the ELCA has opened the door to the blessing of committed same-sex relationships and to the ministry of people in such relationships. I continue to pray and work for their full inclusion in church and society, including their right to civil marriage.

It will be a great day when homosexual humanity is as clearly understood and as fully affirmed as Copernican astronomy is today.

Lowell O. Erdahl, Roseville, is bishop emeritus of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's St. Paul synod.

NOTE: To read comments on Bishop Erdahl’s commentary on the MPR website, click here.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
A Catholic Voice for Marriage Equality at the State Capitol
The Standard for Sexual Ethics
Relationship: The Crucial Factor in Sexual Morality
Donald Hanway’s “Fresh Look at a Sensitive Topic”
Making Love, Giving Life
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
The Non-Negotiables of Human Sex

Passage of Health Care Reform Bill Celebrated by Catholic Democrats

2009-11-08T20:19:00.000-08:00

Catholic Democrats describes itself as an “association of state based groups representing a Catholic voice within the Democratic Party, and advancing a public understanding of the rich tradition of Catholic Social Teaching and its potential to help solve the broad range of problems confronting all Americans.”

Earlier today, the association released the following media release in response to yesterday’s passage in the U.S. House of Representative of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962).

__________________________________

Catholic Democrats Celebrates Passage
of Health Care Reform by House of Representatives
and Applauds Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Her Leadership

Urges All Catholics to Support Adding Provisions to
Senate Bill that Expand Health Care Coverage
as Human Right

Boston, MA - Catholic Democrats applauds the passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last night by a vote of 220 to 215. We congratulate and thank Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for her leadership in passing this historic legislation which will expand health care coverage to an additional 30 million people (covering an estimated 96% of all Americans), prevent insurance companies from denying health insurance for pre-existing conditions, and provide for a public option to compete with private insurance plan.

“This is a day for celebration among Catholics and all Americans who believe that life’s greatest test is how deeply we care for one another,” said Dr Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats.

“We urge the Catholic members of Congress who have not supported the passage of this bill to follow the courageous example set by Representative Joseph Cao (R-LA), a Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian, and support this landmark legislation now. This reform represents progress in helping our nation to realize the Gospel imperative of making health and healing available to all Americans.”

The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of advocating for health care as a right for decades, including pastoral letters issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 1981 and 1993. Passage of an amendment by Bart Stupak (D-MI) resolved the abortion issue to the bishops’ satisfaction so they can now support legislation that will bring the nation closer to universal coverage, especially for poor people and immigrants.

“Now that suitable language addressing abortion funding has been agreed to in the House bill, it opens the way for all Catholics - Democrats, Republicans and Independents - to support the provisions of this bill, which are in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching,” said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. “Catholics have an innate understanding of the role universal health care coverage will play in promoting the common good. Now is the time to build on the success of the House bill and pass legislation that codifies our belief that health care is a fundamental human right.”

Recommended Off-site Links:
House Passes Historic Health Bill - Patrick O’Connor (Politico.com, November 7, 2009)
House Votes Strict Ban on Abortion Subsidies - Erica Werner (Associated Press, November 8, 2009).
Are US Bishops Responsible for Pro-Life Amendment in Health Care Reform? - Frances Kissling (Religion Dispatches, November 8, 2009).
Next Steps for Health Care Reform: All Eyes of Sen. Harry Reid - Carrie Budoff Brown and Mabu Raju (Politico.com, November 8, 2009).

Remembering Dorothy Day

2009-11-08T19:25:00.001-08:00

Today is the 112th anniversary of the birth of Dorothy Day (1897-1980), co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement.

Following is a compilation of some of her words of wisdom and inspiration that I first put together for the montage (at right) that I made in 1997 to take with me to that year’s annual protest of the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia.

__________________________

• Silence means consent, and we cannot consent to the militarization of our country without protest.

• Our love of God is a consuming fire. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It is a living God and a living faith that we are trying to express. We are called to be holy, that is, whole human beings.

• Nationalism has been superseded by the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is the mystery of Christ in us. Because Christ lives in you and me, we are one.

• There is no nationality. The only foreigner is the one who does have Jesus Christ within. But in all human creation, there is no one that does not have Christ within. If only men and women could recognize this, there could never be war.

• That the Mystical Body [of Christ] includes only the Roman Catholic Church is heresy. The Mystical Body is the inseparable oneness of the human race.

• I believe in a personal God. I believe in Jesus Christ, truly God and truly human. And intimate; oh, how closely intimate we may desire to be. I believe we must render most reverent homage to the God who created us, and stilled the sea and told the winds to be calm, and multiplied the loaves and fishes. God is transcendent and immanent. God is closer than the air we breathe and just as vital to us.

• To see Christ in others, especially those in authority, is difficult. To see Christ and only Christ when one is following one’s conscience in what looks like defiance and disobedience is also difficult.

• True love is delicate and kind, full of gentle perception and understanding, full of beauty and grace, full of joy unutterable. Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, what God has prepared for those who love.

• The only answer in this life, to the loneliness we are all bound to feel, is community. The living together, working together, sharing together, loving God and loving our brother, and living close to him in community so we can show our love for Him.

____________________________________

In related news, my friend Polly sent me the following announcement from the Des Moines Catholic Worker newspaper.

Friends of Dorothy Anthology

Brendan Fay and Michael Harank are soliciting essays, letters, stories, and photographs of LGBT women and men from around whose lives and hearts have been transformed and influenced by Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker. This collection will be a unique and insightful remembering of Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin, and the Catholic Worker movement through the eyes of LGBT people. Up to now this has been an untold or incomplete story.

Submissions will be accepted from LGBT people who knew Dorothy in person, through her writings, or her legacy of spirit, or simply by heartfelt affection or association with Catholic Worker communities.

The essays will be a gathering of stories at that “crossroads” of encounter between personal/spiritual radicalism and LGBT humanity. This proposed book seeks to break through the historical silence in honest and heartfelt ways that soulfully reveal, some perhaps for the first time, lives of pain and joy, struggle, compassion, laughter, despair and hope.

The book intends to go beyond the idealized portraits of Catholic Worker communities and to include an inclusive range of experiences, comfort and pain, transformation and healing, rejection and hope.

Please contact Brendan Fay (breandan@stpatsforall.com) or Michael Harank (mharank@yahoo.com).

Recommended Off-site Links:
The Dorothy Day Library
The Catholic Worker Home Page
Diaries Shed Light on Unlikely Would-Be US Saint - Daniel Burke (USA Today, May 30, 2008).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Rita Larivee on Being “Authorized by Baptism”
Remembering the “Radical Ethic” of the Catholic Worker Movement