Same-Sex Marriage



Click on this image to enlarge text

In the not too distant future the ruling members of the Vatican will hopefully  don sackcloth and ashes when they realize the immense harm and pain they have caused their own flock as well as the rest of the world.

Noted author and religious scholar Karen Armstrong  in her latest book, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life’ (2011) makes this brief but powerful comment about the Catholic Church:

“In the Roman Catholic Church, popes and bishops have ignored the suffering of countless women and children by turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse committed by their priests”. 

Catholic apologist today like to distract its members from the real issues (primarily concerning sins committed in the pelvic area) by pointing fingers into the other direction and claiming that they are merely victims of religious persecution.

One recent example of identifying other isolated victims comes to us from the Catholic NewsService  whose author Mark Pattison writes  "several US Bishops (along with more than three dozen U.S. religious leaders) signed a joint document voicing their concern that they are being forced to treat same-sex unions 'as if they were marriage."

   This very un-Christian letter or document takes up the argument, not so much on religious grounds, but rather on the impact same-sex marriages will have on legal and domestic grounds.  For example the signatories warned that ‘Religious employers would "face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action -- no matter how modest -- against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil 'marriage' with a member of the same sex”.  The real question then should be ‘exactly whose rights are being denied? Since the details are readily available to the readers, I will leave it to them to form their own opinions.

When this item first appeared online through various Catholic websites I quickly posted my thoughts on the subject as follows:

"Reading this letter is like reading the instructions for building a fortress or assembling missiles. The overwhelming essence this message conveys is one of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of offending the authorities, the legal system, the insurance industry and an even greater fear that legalization of same-sex marriage will somehow undermine or even destroy so-called family values. Nothing can undermine what we hold true in God!

 
Has anyone noticed that there are several key words missing in this text? There is not a single reference to God or love? Be assured that when fear steps in the Holy Spirit steps aside. This has allowed some of our more vocal religious leaders to rely on temporal support for their argument rather than trusting in the unconditional love of our Creator. Allow me to paraphrase the last paragraph of this document accordingly: The value of marriage (mixed or otherwise) when honoured between two loving people and blessed by God transcends any society or government. God rather than worldly institutions and opinions must be the only true foundation of all societies".

As expected several conservative individuals immediately jumped in at the opportunity to properly denounce people with homosexual tendencies.  These fervent Christians are convinced that they have the full support of God, the magisterium and a vast majority of similar thinking laity.

In response to my posting one contributor wondered if I was crazy because I talked too much about God's unconditional love.  At the same time he/she voiced the opinion that I lacked the intelligence to provide an explanation that would reach God's logic.  When I suggested that perhaps other readers might benefit from his/her definition of God’s unconditional love, I received this reply:

 “If all that is required for a marriage is love, then why limit it to just two people, why not love between two of more people?  Why discriminate against these other kinds of love? On the other hand, keeping marriage between a man and a woman, as a means to bond and create a family is consistent and logical.  Once you get rid of this definition, then pretty much anything goes”.

At this point most readers would probably recommend  I not respond to such an outrageous comment.  Sorry, but I did.

“Dear . . .  From reading between the lines it appears you have a problem with persons with sexual preferences or attractions that are different from yours. There are cultures and traditions in many parts of the world where a marriage involves more than two people. Is that wrong? If so, why and according to whose standards? Many biblical heroes and figures such as Abraham and David had more than one wife or concubine. The list is quite long. If the sole purpose of keeping a marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family what do you say to those families where one of the two partners is infertile? To jump to the simple conclusion that if we DON'T limit your definitions of love then ‘anything goes’! If that is all it takes to break your connection with God then He is no more than your average weak human being. Or at best a god created in our own poor image.

 
As for lust that is something that is equally shared by both heterosexual and homosexual couples. But your comment begs the question ‘how will the average God fearing individual know, when and if homosexuals or lesbians, etc. are indeed involved in that sinful sexual act? The catechism is at least more generous than you toward people of the same sex by telling us that we must love them – perhaps for some not the act. We could all do with trying to be more compassionate and less judgmental toward each other. Lets therefore again focus on the real meaning of God’s unconditional love”.

And that was the last I heard from our very convinced anti-gay friend. May the spirit of compassion and understanding fill his heart and bring him peace.

Before you leave this page, I would ask that you click and enlarge the picture that accompanies this article in the begining.  It has some interesting things to say about marriage taken from the Bible.  

Apologetics fail

A recent article (click here for details)  by Cindy Wooden of the Catholic News Services announced that the Catholic Church wants to re-introduce the theology of Apologetics. Its intent is to try and show that the Catholic faith is reasonable, and can be defended against the arguments of those who attack it.    

It should be obvious to readers that this attempt by the Vatican to re-introduce the ‘art’ of apologetics is a simple devise to ward off the fear of becoming irrelevant.  The opening paragraph should already alert most enlightened and informed Catholics that Jesus warned us not to  ‘pour old wine into new wineskins’.   This fear is echoed again and again when the author tries to defend the current problems experienced Church by pointing the finger at others, be they atheist, agnostics.  Does scripture not remind us that before judging others we need to take the log out of our own eye before we examine the speck out our brother’s eye?”  Note the long list apologist hope to defend:  sexual abuse, abortion, AIDS, same-sex marriage and women in the Church.  What is needed here is healing not some pamphlet defending it.

Note that the author makes repeated claims that the Church needs to TRAIN its members in its official teachings.  It is hoped/planned to disseminate appropriate apologetic material ASAP into the hands of Catholics.  At no time does the article suggest that People of God should have any input into this project, however valuable and inspirational that could be.  Has the Church forgotten that faith is a matter of the heart, the place where God resides?  What is really needed is for the Church to direct people to God – not become the destination.  The Church must return to pure humility as Christ teaches us abundantly. The heart is the place where ALL people who have placed their trust in God will find their answers.  Anything other than that merely results in the continued spread of co-dependency it produces.

This defensive article reminds me of a mechanic who when coming upon a car accident sends the driver to the garage instead of the automobile. 

A great Catholic teacher of mine posted this reflection yesterday which explains the problem with ‘apologetics’ in much better terms.

“Today the unnecessary suffering on this earth is great for people who could have “known better” and should have been taught better by their religions. In the West, religion became preoccupied with telling people what to know more than how to know, telling people what to see more than how to see. We ended up seeing Holy Things faintly, trying to understand Great Things with a whittled-down mind, and trying to love God with our own small and divided heart. It has been like trying to view the galaxies with a five-dollar pair of binoculars.

Contemplation, my word for this larger seeing, keeps the whole field open; it remains vulnerable before the moment, the event, or the person—before it divides and tries to conquer or control it. Contemplatives refuse to create false dichotomies, dividing the field for the sake of the quick comfort of their ego. I call contemplation “full-access knowing”—not irrational, but pre-rational, non-rational, rational and trans-rational all at once. Contemplation is an exercise in keeping your heart and mind spaces open long enough for the mind to see other hidden material. It is content with the naked now and waits for futures given by God and grace”. . .  Fr. Richard Rohr

In conclusion I appeal to all Catholics to return to the much greater faith inspiring program called ‘RENEW’, which allowed lay people (unsupervised by members of the clergy) to gather in their respective homes and discuss and enter more deeply into their questions of faith.  RENEW was officially cancelled by conservative elements of the church when they realized that Catholics were perfectly capable of dealing with the complex questions of the faith.        

On the Question of Apologetics

My initial interest in the Catholic tradition was sparked by the enthusiasm and openness of Vatican II. One of the key phrases uttered by our pastor at one of the initial RCIA sessions was “the Catholic Church does not hold the corner on the faith market”. The simplicity and truth of this statement will remain with me forever. It eased the transition from one religious tradition to another. It did not diminish or exclude my Protestant background and more importantly my paternal/maternal families.

What a disappointment it has been to see this Church once again make exclusive claims such as “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” (Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994 --paragraph 846) followed by the Compendium of the Catechism (2005 --article 171). As such the Church has signaled a desire to completely reverse the pastoral views introduced by Vatican II. Similarly the Congration for Doctrine Faith’s 2000 document Dominus Iesus claims that followers of religions other than Christianity are “in gravely deficient situation” with regard to salvation of their souls. While more recently the new Roman Missal awaiting approval by our Canadian Bishops pushes the question of salvation back even further. If accepted, Canadian Catholics will be instructed to respond that Jesus came to save "many" instead of the current "all." To quote Sr. Joan Chittister " The theological implications of these changes speaks volumes. Who is it that Jesus did not come to save?"

Catholic apologist Dr. Scott Hahn has stated that God’s revelation came to a close with the death of the last Apostle . This might suggest to some that Jesus died on the cross and did not rise. (Might this be a reason why Catholics have identified with the crucified Christ for so long?) Halleluiah, Christ has risen and is alive! Creation is ongoing and we are his co-creators. God’s gift of faith is a dynamic. It is communion with God through which he reveals himself to us daily. We only have to listen with the ear of our heart! God is alive and well and resides in the heart of each human being (aka the divine indwelling). Whether or not we chose to listen – is His gift of freedom. What an incredible gift considering that so often we choose to do things our own selfish way – and yet he continues to love us.
On the matter of Papal Primacy and Succession I find myself asking these questions. Was Jesus (and his apostles) not born, and raised as a Jew? Did he not die as a Jew? Did he give up his own Jewish tradition in favour of an institutional substitute bearing his name? To suggest that he told Peter to build a church complete with a hierarchical structure and all its trappings profoundly contradicts Jesus’ temptation in the desert where he rejected such earthly kingdoms of the world. More importantly, Jesus came to save ALL and is unlikely to have demanded that membership to a particular religion was necessary to experience his promise of salvation or live out a life based on his kingdom values.
The word ‘church’ is not found in the original Greek version of the Bible. The original Greek term Ekklesia meant assembly or community and is much more compatible with Jesus’ intent to establish God’s Kingdom here on earth. A kingdom based on compassion, understanding, equality, etc., as illustrated through his many parables which many of his disciples did not understand. For me Jesus came to teach us a way to live communally in peace and harmony, to bring healing and forgiveness.
Leadership in any community is essential. Leadership guided by the Holy Spirit would be ideal. God chooses his people not because of their strengths but because of their weaknesses and their desire to trust in the Spirit. Apostolic Succession as interpreted by our Catholic Church suggests that the power is the exclusive right of the hierarchy. Apostolic succession or the carrying forth of the Good News is the happy duty of every individual created by God.
Papal Infallibility is a difficult topic and misunderstood by many Catholics. However, Jesus never made claims or suggestions in this direction from any readings I have been able to find in the Bible. In fact, he always deferred directly to God the Father. The Church too must always be the finger pointing to God and never act as the ‘destination’. Jesus said, “What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God who sent me”. Dogma and Doctrine can be helpful tools to help us grasp and understand life’s difficult questions. But ultimately they must lead us to our hearts to bring about transformation and our experience of God’s salvation. Rigid observance or following of Church teachings without consulting our inner experience of God may result in an unhealthy co-dependency for both parties. Who do you trust God or the Church?
Finally, some Catholic apologist havesuggested that God will hasten the end of any Judas type that might occupy the Chair. Does this statement not completely dismiss those Popes in history who enjoyed a generous term on the Chair at the expense of many lives and much cruelty? If God did not stop these individuals it is easier to understand why would he not have intervened in the case of Hitler, Stalin and many other notorious individuals before they unleashed so much pain and suffering onto the world? Incidentally, this same idea was regretfully expressed by a Roman Catholic Apologetic in our parish several years ago.
In conclusion, I recognize that my views on these theological points may differ significantly from those expressed by an expert. And perhaps more alarmingly (to some) may be in direct opposition to official Church teaching. However, I have come to love the God who moves beyond static doctrine and dogma. It is a God who loves all humankind unconditionally, and invites us with all our questions rather than blindly accept prepared answers. Here again I see the Church’s role to guide, not force, and help each other to discover the God within. We are all unique and Holy individuals capable of many unholy actions. The bigger question is should we look at others through their sinful nature (false self) or look for the God within (true self) however deep it may be hidden?

There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire—they could cook, could keep them­selves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he disappeared. He wasn't con that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instru­ments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.

Where's the fire? Where's the love? Where's the drug uprooted from your system? Where's the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don't we? This is what Jesus Christ is all about. But we overemphasized the "Lord, Lord," didn't we? Where's the fire? And if worship isn't leading to the fire, if adoration isn't leading to love, if the liturgy isn't leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn't leading to life, of what use is religion except to create more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism?

Anthony de Mello, Awareness, ‘The Land of Love, p. 174-175, Image Books, Toronto, 1992