War on Catholics

The Catholic Church or at least the Catholic bishops in both Canada and the US are  on the defensive mode.   The Ontario Bishops are fighting a desperate battle to defend their position on GSA’s while the American bishops, acting as Republican pawns, are trying to unbalance Obama’s attempt to provide for a nation-wide public health plan.  What are Catholics to make of all this?  In this day of Robo Calls, information overload and dirty politics it is easy to become confused about many of the issues presented as fact or truth.

For Catholics and other Christian believers it is important to stay grounded in Gospel values and take personal responsibility to discern the voice of the God within and in others. Remember the bishops have been wrong before but are sworn to uphold Church teachings and therefore more likely to be influenced externally and risk challenging dogma and doctrine.  Hence the Vatican’s current strong commitment to oppose the primacy of individual conscience over Church teaching.

One of the voices I have come to respect a great deal is that of Professor Daniel Maguire. His view of the U.S. bishops’ current position regarding Obama’s plan to introduce a national health plan will help Catholics understand who’s wrong in this war on Catholics.    

 Who’s Wrong in ‘War on Catholics’?

February 7, 2012

Exclusive: GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich claims President Obama has declared “war on the Catholic Church” with a ruling that contraception must be included in health plans for employees of church-led institutions, but Catholic moral theologian Daniel C. Maguire says it is the U.S. bishops (and Gingrich) who are wrong.

By Daniel C. Maguire

The decision of the Obama administration to ensure health care coverage including contraception in Catholic institutions has enraged American bishops who lobbied hard against it. The bishops claim their religious freedom is violated by this ruling, but the bishops are wrong and out of the mainstream of Catholic teaching, including the teaching of bishops in other parts of the Catholic world.

A number of bishops, including Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, have spoken strongly on the need for condoms, especially in areas ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases. The U.S. bishops are even at odds with the pope who approves the use of condoms “where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection.”

The papal change on condoms effectively ended the taboo on condoms since it says that health concerns may require their use, and there are many health concerns aside from HIV/AIDS. The nonpartisan and well-respected Institute of Medicine, on which the Obama administration relied, says contraceptives can be used to treat reduce the risk of endometrial cancer and pelvic inflammatory disease and other diseases mainly affecting women.

Also use of contraception is linked to the decline in infant death. Obviously contraception limits the number of abortions since it prevents unwanted pregnancies.

But the American bishops say the administration’s decision on Jan. 20 was a case of religious freedom. In that, they are right but not in the way they intend it. The bishops are claiming the religious freedom to violate the religious freedom of those who are employed in their institutions or who are served in their tax-supported hospitals. By denying contraception as part of employee health plans, what the bishops seek is more like religious fascism than religious freedom.

Furthermore, traditional Catholic teaching rests on a tripod, including the hierarchy, the theologians and the sensus fidelium, the experience-fed wisdom of the laity. These three sources of teaching are, as Cardinal Avery Dulles said, “complementary and mutually corrective.” An accurate look at Catholic teaching on contraception today shows strong support for the position that contraception is not only permissible but even mandatory in many cases.

Catholic theologians overwhelmingly support contraception. Dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities cover prescribed contraceptives. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used contraceptives. Only 2 percent of Catholic women use the “rhythm method” of birth control favored by conservative Catholics.

Therefore the decision of the Obama administration, rather than threatening Catholic teaching on contraception, is actually more attuned to actual Catholic teaching than are the American Catholic bishops with their idiosyncratic taboo on contraception.

Daniel C. Maguire is a Professor of Moral Theology at Marquette University, a Catholic, Jesuit institution in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He is author of A Moral Creed for All Christians.

Homosexuality and the Bishops

Catholic Church teachings on homosexuality are being challenged by the Ontario government which wants to implement gay-straight alliance groups in all schools in the province to combat school bullying particularly aimed at homosexual students.  Officials representing Catholic schools have consistently opposed such implementation on the basis that it conflicts with Catholic Church teachings.  While Catholic officials have proposed alternative anti-bullying programs Church teachings still demand that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and a matter of grave depravity.  Naturally this is precisely the kind of language that provides the kind of fuel for justified anger by the bully to bear upon its innocent victims.  As an official Church teaching revised in the early nineties it completely lacks any kind compassion for those with a different sexual orientation.  Previous Church teachings such as those contained in the widely accepted Dutch Catechism (1966) offered no such condemnation towards homosexuals at all.  Somehow the Church under the current Pope has allowed itself to focus almost exclusively on sexual issues at the expense of ministering to the needs of the people’s interior spiritual hunger.  What makes this whole issue even more unbalanced is the Catholic Church’s own internal and  unresolved problems with its world-wide growing sexual abuse cases. 

The Catholic Bishops of Ontario are in a very difficult position and must feel the strain of being forced to tow the line while recognizing the inequality as well as the dangers contained in the current Church teaching.  Meanwhile some Catholic newspapers are making desperate attempts to defend the indefensible.  A recent article in the Catholic Register ‘Author Aims to Bring More Light toHomosexuality’ by Professor Paul Flaman did anything but that. 

Thank God to help us put this matter into its proper perspective readers might like to read the following reflection offered by Fr. Richard Rohr as follows:

A Consistent Ethic of Life

In recent elections one would have thought that homosexuality and abortion were the new litmus tests of Christianity. Where did this come from? They never were the criteria of proper membership for the first 2000 years, but reflect very recent culture wars instead! And largely from people who think of themselves as “traditionalists”! The fundamentals were already resolved in the early Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Note that none of the core beliefs are about morality at all. The Creeds are more mystical, cosmological, and about aligning our lives inside of a huge sacred story. When you lose the mystical level, you always become moralistic as a cheap substitute.

Jesus is clearly much more concerned about issues of pride, injustice, hypocrisy, blindness, and what I have often called “The Three Ps,” or power, prestige, and possessions, which are probably 95% of his written teaching. We conveniently ignore this 95% to concentrate on a morality that usually has to do with human embodiment. That’s where people get righteous, judgemental, and upset, for some reason. The body seems to be where we carry our sense of shame and inferiority, and early-stage religion has never gotten much beyond these “pelvic” issues. As Jesus put it, “You ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith. . . . [And instead] you strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24). We worry about what people are doing in bed much more than making sure everybody has a bed to begin with. There certainly is a need for a life-giving sexual morality, but one could question whether Christian nations have found it yet.

Christianity will regain its moral authority when it starts emphasizing social sin in equal measure with individual (read “body-based”) sin and weave them both into a seamless garment of love and truth.

Do you think our Bishops will read it?  Which Bishop will have the courage of his convictions? 

Catholic Teaching on Sexuality fails

Human Life & Sexuality
 Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam

In the eyes of Fr. Jack Gallagher, sociologists have proven Catholic Teaching on Sexuality and Marriage is Right.  So reads a recent headline in the Western Catholic Reporter.

However I believe with God it is never about whether we ‘get it right’ or not.  Not one of us will ever 'get it right'! Thankfully, God is only interested in our heart.  

If anyone is interested they can read Fr. Jack Gallagher's entire 300 page book  Human Sexuality and Christian Marriage - An Ethical Study free on-line.

It is evident that sociologist and church teachings still want to take precedence over our God given freedom of conscience while ignoring its primacy guaranteed under Canon Law. That is not to suggest that all Church teachings must be rejected; on the contrary.  Its teachings on justice and peace, for example  have been exemplary.  On the other hand its teachings on human sexuality have been anything but dismal and even downright un-Christian.    

Hopefully one day the   Church’s teaching on sexuality will bring more of Christ’s love, compassion, wisdom and understanding to the subject. (whatever do they think when reading Song of Songs?) Since the sexual act is a highly private and personal activity between a loving and committed couple their need for God’s direct blessing in this regard is certainly more important than any dictates from a celibate institution.   The Church will finally graduate on the question of human sexuality when it:

·       Accepts contraception when practised between two loving and committed heterosexual couples as their personal decision bound by and under God.

·       Accepts and blesses the role of married priests by recognizing that celibacy is a gift from God not a condition forced on them by the Church.

·       Accepts and blesses the role of women as priests, bishops, etc., as a gift of equality confirmed by God and not an artificial condition enforced by the Church.

·       Accepts and blesses the role of the laity in the Church as equal partners working together to bring about Christ’s kingdom here on earth.

·       Accepts and blesses divorced couples who desire to return to the Church by giving them full access to all the sacraments.  (the simple desire to be in communion with God automatically takes precedence over any Church rulings).

·       Accepts its God given role to work for and among all people who have contracted Aids.

·       Accepts and recognizes the sexual act when practiced between two loving and committed homosexual couples as gift from God.

·       Blesses the role of committed homosexuals to adopt and raise children

·       Accepts and blesses abortion in all cases when it threatens the life of the mother or in exceptional cases of rape, and incest etc.,

·       Humbly accepts the advice provided by Catholic experts calling for a total and complete overhaul of the systemic and endemic problems within the institution that resulted in the sexual abuse of women and children by misguided members of the clergy.  

Finally, to paraphrase Fr. Jack Gallagher: “The Church must evangelize recognizing God in the present or it dies.”  God meets us where we are not where others would have us be.

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.        

Bullying homosexual students

Should Catholic families and schools be educating children to respect students with a same-sex orientation  especially to prevent students from bullying  these individuals?  It would appear that efforts by  gay-straight alliances (GSAs) to do so in schools  are in running into opposition from Catholic   authorities. 

The Catholic Register recently reported that a program to introduce provincially mandated workshops, and led by student GSA’s   “Homophobia in Catholic schools,” has admittedly run into considerable opposition.  The opposition has come from Catholics who say it advocates a morality that contradicts Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality.  The official word from the Alliance of Catholic Bishops of Ontario reads: “The debate surrounding Gay/Straight Alliances (GSAs) in Catholic high schools is being complicated by the fact that people are not distinguishing between an objective and a strategy.”  An  article by  Prof. Graham P. McDonough 'Are GSA's really contrary to Catholic Thinking? offers some interesting views as to why this issue and program may now have reached an impasse.

The current teaching on homosexuality as contained in the 1983 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par. 2357 concludes that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and are considered to be of grave depravity”.   It is relatively easy to recognize the hand of Joseph Ratzingers in this document when he later as Pope Benedict XVI again declared  “The homosexual inclination is however 'objectively disordered' and homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'”.    It would probably appear to most Catholics that this has been the historical position of the Catholic Church  – not so!  A far more compassionate teaching and understanding of homosexuality was presented in the popular post Vatican II edition of ‘A New Catechism’ which stated . . . “it is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex.  The causes of homosexuality are unknown” . . . clearly the current Catechism projects guilt upon the homosexual, while the previous teaching makes absolute no judgment whatsoever.  An informed Catholic can therefore conclude that current church teachings on homosexually adds fuel to the fire by inciting some Catholics, especially the young, to bully more victims. 

Even though the Church teaches that . . . “ They [homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” . . . .  it has had little or no impact on acts of  bullying in schools especially on victims of  suicide such as  the lonely cry for acceptance by gay Ottawa student Jamie Hubley.

Finally, I  challenged our Catholic Bishops  (May 2011)  to respond to this sensitive matter and have  asked them . . . "How is the supposed sin of a homosexual greater than that of a heterosexual?  If not please stop this obsessive persecution immediately!  The Church’s present position on homosexuality continues  to hurt families and individuals who must bear this burden.  It merely promotes and incites the ongoing hatred and bullying of those whose life style is different from ours.  The self effacing emphasis on 'love the sinner but not the sin' does very little for its victims.  If the Church sincerely believes that the sexual act of a loving homosexual couple is a sin, then how does it differ from that of a similar act performed by a loving heterosexual couple?  Exactly what aspect of the sexual act, when performed by a committed couple in a loving setting is considered a sin?

I have yet to receive a response from our bishops.   Their continued silence does however, speak volumes and seems to  leave Jesus' warning to avoid judgment in the dark.  

Same-sex attraction

Canada’s Catholic bishops have published an uncompromising pastoral letter on ministry to young people with same-sex attraction that upholds Church teaching on sexuality yet purports by some to show sensitivity to their challenges. The eight-page booklet prepared by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (CCCB) doctrinal commission and released June 27 comes at a time when publicly funded Catholic schools in Ontario are under pressure from the provincial government’s equity policy.

After reading the Pastoral Letter I felt compelled to write our Bishops as follows:  

I have read the Canadian Bishops Pastoral letter regarding young people with same-sex attraction.  While it may accurately reflect current Church teaching it actually perpetuates the plight of the homosexual.  At the same time it does not offer any insight behind the Church`s position on the subject.  Allow me to preface my concerns and questions against the following true story:  

  

Several years ago, while my wife and I were still actively involved in a Catholic prayer group, we were confronted by the story of a tragic death involving the son of one of our oldest members. Emotionally torn and upset, Fred (not his real name) shared how this death had deeply affected him on several conflicting levels. Tearfully our eighty plus year old friend and father, revealed how his son’s grief had shown him for the first time how much his son had loved his partner who had now suddenly passed away. Wiping away his tears, Fred admitted to us how guilt and church teachings had taught him that love between two members of the same-sex was wrong. He even expressed how these negative feelings had strained the relationship between him and his son for many years. Perhaps, it was his fault that he had raised a child with homosexual tendencies. Or, maybe God was punishing him for his past sins. He had led quite a rugged life, indifferent to others, and so on. But his son’s grief was so real, so honest and so revealing of a relationship that consisted of a love between two caring and giving individuals. For the first time Fred was able to equate the recent loss of his wife with the loss experienced by his son.  

I don`t think of myself as a modern activist or whatever that label is supposed to mean.  But as a disappointed and disenfranchised Catholic convert (1986) I do feel the need to ask questions about matters of faith, and particularly as it affects the homosexual.  Faith for me is a dynamic which requires a deep and often a challenging sense of justice and compassion. As Christians we need to question our beliefs and not arbitrarily accept what is presented to us.  Questions are more important than answers if we are to grow in faith and remain open to change and miracles.  The belief that we or the Church possess all the answers is the only true heresy!  

The Pastoral letter opens with the honest admission that the Church does not really know the psychological causes behind Same-sex Attraction but then, on the next seven pages its author(s) feel perfectly justified to condemn any sexual activity between homosexual persons by insisting that they accept a life of forced celibacy. Is that not somewhat arrogant? To quote noted Catholic social ethicist Daniel C. Maguire “Voluntary celibacy for a good cause is something some can do, but it was seen as a special talent, a special gift that not all have. The Vatican Council called it “a precious gift of divine grace which the Father gives to some persons,” but not to all. Abstaining from all sexual activity is seen by the council as something “unique.” You cannot demand from all homosexual people that which is “unique”. St. Paul recognizes the same thing when he says, “It is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor. 7:9). What kind of Gospel “good news’ would it be to tell all gay persons that their only choice is to “burn, baby, burn”? The view that homosexual people are condemned involuntary celibacy for life is as cruel as it is absurd.”

The claim that the Church’s position on homosexuality is based on scripture and Tradition must also be challenged.  The popular post Vatican II Catholic A New Catechism (1969) states that “the very sharp strictures of Scripture on homosexual practises  (Gen. 19; Rom. 1) must be read in their context. Their aim is not to pillory the fact that some people experience this perversion in culpably.  They denounce a homosexuality which had become the prevalent fashion and had spread to many who were really quite capable of normal sexual sentiments.”  As for Tradition, the Catholic Church has a much longer Tradition honouring same-sex attraction.  Saints Serge and Bacchus, a same-sex couple whose marriage is preserved in a seventh-century icon shows Jesus as the official witness, or best man at their wedding.   

It seems to me that our bishops completely failed to understand homosexuality in the context of the critical distinction between Love and a Sexual Perversion. One must admit that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally capable of both. If not are the sins of a homosexual somehow greater than that of a heterosexual? So, why this narrow focus by insisting that genital sex between loving homosexual couples are considered ‘acts of grave depravity? Is it simply because homosexuals cannot procreate? Or is it something more sinister in the minds of some? Remember, celibate members of the clergy must not procreate either. Perhaps, this report is intended to support the tortured and unchanging position by the Church, on human sexuality as promoted by St. Augustine or similar views expressed by some conservative Catholics. 
 

Note (added July 1): Perhaps it was this Augustinian mindset that  brought the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under  Cardinal Ratzinger to issue a document on  Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986)  which demanded that pastoral care for  homosexuals could  no longer  be tolerated and that Church facilities could not be made available for them because it contradicts Church teachings. A subsequent Notification in 1999 silenced and removed Sr. Jeannine Gramick and Fr. Robert Nugent from their care towards the gay and lesbian community.

Award winning religion journalist David Gibson, writes the following about a by-chance encounter between Pope Benedict XVI and  Sr. Jeannine Gramick in his biography ‘The Rule of Benedict’ (2006).

“The issue of homosexuality has always been of great interest to Benedict, who wrote far more about the topic while at the CDF than any other churchman ever had. Characteristically, however, Ratzinger also seems to have formed his judgments with little, if any, real-life interaction with homosexual ,men and  women to inform his views. In a telling exchange,  Sr. Jeannine Gramick, the American nun whom Ratzinger would eventually banish from her ministry to gays and lesbians, ran into Ratzinger by chance on an airplane¹ ride from Rome to Bavaria in July 1998. (The cardinal was going to see his brother; the nun was going to pray for aid at the Munich shrine of her order's foundress.)  Gramick struck up a pleasant conversation with Ratzinger, at first not recognizing him and believing him to be a simple priest. When he revealed his identity, they began talking about the issues on which Ratzinger was investigating her. When Gramick asked whether the cardinal had ever met any gay people, Ratzinger replied: "Yes, in Berlin. They were demonstrating against the pope." That Ratzinger's only interaction with homosexuals was at such a remove and under such circumstances does not inspire confidence in his conclusions, nor does it square with the reality that there are many gay priests and bishops, not only in the worldwide church, but most certainly in the Roman Curia itself. That this would be unknown to Ratzinger is either remarkably ingenuous, willfully blind, or simply evidence of the don't ask, don't tell policy that permeates much of clerical life, and in fact can foster sexual dysfunctions of all kinds.”

After finishing the pastoral letter I was left with the following additional questions- Is the supposed sin of a homosexual greater than that of a heterosexual? If not please cease this obsessive persecution immediately. The Church`s present position on homosexuality continues to hurt families and individuals who must bear this burden.  It merely promotes the ongoing hatred for those whose life style is different from ours.    The self effacing emphasis on loving the sinner but not the sin does very little for the victim.

If the Church sincerely believes that the sexual act of a loving homosexual couple is a sin, then how does it differ from a similar sexual act performed by loving heterosexual couples?  Exactly what aspect of the sexual act, when performed by a committed couple in a loving setting, is considered a sin?

Finally, to borrow a phrase from the text of this pastoral letter I believe that in the eyes of God every human person is a unique and irreplaceable gift – however there are many in our Church who do not share that sentiment when it comes to homosexuals.  This negative view is even promoted in the pastoral letter when it is suggested that homosexuals do not fulfill God`s will in their lives.  Agreed, procreation is essential for the continuation of our species but not all heterosexuals can or are able to participate in this part of God`s plan.  Why then punish homosexuals for failing in this regard?  In my search for answers I have learned that homosexuals were held in high regard by some of our native tribes for their artistic abilities.  Why can we not celebrate the gifts homosexuals bring to society instead? 

People are not naturally cruel.  They become cruel when they are unhappy- or when they succumb to an ideology. If religious people had always followed the instinct of their heart rather than the logic of their religion we would have been spared the sight of heretics burning at stakes, widows walking into funeral pyres, and millions of innocent people slaughtered in wars that are waged in the name of God.  Compassion has no ideology.  - Anthony de Mello, 'The Song of the Bird'

Religious persecution continues

Several years ago, while my wife and I were still actively involved in a Catholic prayer group, we were confronted by the story of a tragic death involving the son of one of our oldest members. Emotionally torn and upset, Fred (not his real name) shared how this death had deeply affected him on several conflicting levels. Tearfully our eighty plus year old friend and father, revealed how his son’s grief had shown him for the first time how much his son had loved his partner who had now suddenly passed away. Wiping away his tears, Fred admitted to us how guilt and church teachings had taught him that love between two members of the same-sex was wrong. He even expressed how these negative feelings had strained the relationship between him and his son for many years. Perhaps, it was his fault that he had raised a child with homosexual tendencies. Or, maybe God was punishing him for his past sins. He had led quite a rugged life, indifferent to others, and so on. But his son’s grief was so real, so honest and so revealing of a relationship that consisted of a love between two caring and giving individuals.

Roman Catholics and several other religions do not seem to understand the difference between LOVE and SEXUAL PERVERSION particularly as it applies to gays. People opposed to a gay lifestyle will quickly point out various scripture passages, such as Romans 1:26-32, that convinces them that God condemns such behaviour. Such individuals apparently believe that St. Paul’s warning about sexual perversions does not apply equally to heterosexual persons. This distorted view is not only held by some but endorsed by numerous institutional religions. When these messages are espoused by religious institutions, they take on a whole new level of unjustified hatred and condemnation. The recent suicide by the gifted Rutgers University student is but one example of the ongoing message of hate.

In a Christian context it remains a complete mystery why religious institutions have been unable to grasp the simple message from Jesus when he said, “Don’t judge!” The Catholic Church, in my opinion, has been unrelenting under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in their unchristian attitude towards gays. What most Catholics don’t seem to know today is that prior to their election, the Catholic Church held a cmpletely compassionate opinion on the matter. The New Catechism – Catholic Faith for Adults (1973) had this to say about ‘The Homosexual’: It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown . . . .” Furthermore the text goes on to say: “The very sharp strictures of Scripture on homosexual practises (Gen. 1; Rom. 1) must be read in their context.” This Catechism received an official Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in September 29, 1969. This understanding changed dramatically under both John Paul II and especially Pope Benedict XVI. The present Catechism takes a most inhuman and therefore unchristian attack on homosexuality by calling such unions a perversion. This claim is endorsed with the warning that those who are in opposition with Church teachings shall be proclaimed heretics and anathema. These threats are identical with the commands issued by Pope’s hundreds of years ago when they launched religious persecutions such as the Crusades, Inquisition, burning of witches, etc.

However, with the power these institutions knowingly wield, they could easily and immediately bring Christ’s healing to this shameful issue. How? By reversing their present stance on homosexual unions and recognizing the bond of love and conferring God’s blessing on that union. It is really no different than for two heterosexual people. Think of what this could mean to Fred, his son and thousands, perhaps millions of others Finally, I ask readers does a Christian perspective have anything to do with condemnation and hatred?’

NOTE: As of 2008 the Vatican has refused to sign a UN Declaration to Decriminalize Homosexuality - Canada and many other countries, except USA (under Pres. Bush) did.

NOTE: During April, 2010 Pope Benedict's number two man, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, called homosexuality a "pathology" and linked it directly to sexual abuse of children.

Fast-tracking two Popes to Sainthood

I have just purchased the book, The Power and the Glory- Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican (2007) by David Yallop. Hopefully this book will reveal an honest and objective portrait of the 'real' Pope John Paul II, unadorned by the usual biased Vatican approved criteria. The author promises to expose some of the myths about the role Wojtyla played during and after WWII in Poland as well as some of the half-truths about this Pope's long reign. At the same time this book will examine the role of the Vatican in the fall of Communism, the mismanagement of Vatican finances, its failure to address the child sexual abuse crisis, the rise of Opus Dei, to the "Holy Alliance" between the White House and the Vatican. The Power and the Glory, according the fly-leaf is a bold and unflinching look at a man being fast-tracked to sainthood and his profound effect on a polarized institution.

As a convert to Catholicism, married to a cradle Catholic, I initially avoided almost everything and anything that spoke against 'the Church'. Today all that has changed due to a greater inner desire for truth and justice. As an active member of our small parish it was my happy duty to accept the role as Catechist for more than twenty years. In order the present fresh material for our yearly inquirers I specifically avoided using the same material and resources as much as possible (admittedly for the purpose of keeping it interesting for myself). The research lead me into many avenues and alleys along the way. However, the objective as I saw it was to bring people closer to an unconditionally loving Creator. As the years went on, I gradually began to question some of the teachings of the Church against the greater Gospel values. This was to become my 'downfall' as I started to speak out about a God, who did not punish, reward or hand-out favours. Additionally questions about Apostolic Succession, Gays, Abortion, and Sexual Abuse lead to my eventual (predictable?) dismissal by a recently appointed completely Orthodox minded priest. Most of the priests, during the previous year's understood and accepted my more expanded views. I seldom failed to include the Church's Traditional position or teachings. 'Critical thinking' is better than 'no thinking' remains my motto in the search for truth.

Nowhere does this seem more appropriate, then on the subject of Pope Pius XII and his role regarding the Jews during WWII. Yallop suggests that Pius XII may have saved as many as 860,000 Jews. The latest findings by German historian, Dr. Michael Hesemann were hailed as Proof is overwhelming Pius XII saved Jewish lives by a local Catholic on-line news media. The online article stated that Pius XII "arranged the flight of 200,000 Jews from Germany as early as 1938."

The number of books that have been written 'pro and con' about Pius XII during WWII would almost fill a medium sized library. Since the Vatican remains secretive and unresponsive, this controversial subject will remain on people's questioning minds for many more years to come. In the meantime, fast-tracking Pius XII to sainthood, similar to Pope John Paul II, may take a little longer.

>

Who do you trust?

The National Catholic Reporter announced this week (May 18/2010) "A Catholic nun, who was a member of a Phoenix Catholic hospital's ethics committee, was excommunicated and reassigned last week for her role in allowing an abortion to take place at the hospital, according to the Phoenix diocese. The surgery was considered necessary to save the life of a critically ill patient [mother of four].

The surgery took place at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. The decision, involving Sister of Mercy Margaret McBride, physicians and the patient, drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix diocese. He said abortion is not permissible under any circumstances."

The article brought an overwhelming number of responses (pro and con) from readers who supported or took issue with Bishop Olmstead as well as official church teaching on abortion.

Catholics have not learned (indeed have not been taught) to depend on a direct relationship with their Creator. Perhaps a new sacrament needs to be introduced, similar to a Rite of Passage that finally severs our umbilical cord from the religious institution - we graduate! Catholics as adults need to take responsibility for their own spiritual development including all moral and ethical decisions and responsibilities. Catholics and indeed other Christian religious institutions need to defer to the Holy Spirit that exists within each human being. Does scripture not support this claim: "But the Advocate,the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you." (John 14:26)

The role of the church is to help and assist us in letting go and listen to what our heart is telling us. As adults we must accept that we either trust in the church or we trust in God – but we cannot serve two masters. This is the dilemma we now find ourselves into with regard to many of the issues within the church. We have simply failed to accept responsibility for our own faith development – out of fear we have simply abrogated our faith to someone else. Religion fails whenever it sees itself as the necessary intermediate to God.

Franciscan priest, Richard Rohr has suggested that "a mature adult relationship with God is not possible in the beginning because we fear and avoid intimacy. We settle, instead, for tribal customs, laws and occupations as our identity. Membership in the group will become a gateway to, but often a substitute for personal encounter and inner experience" Interestingly, Fr. Rohr refers to 'non-groupthink' as Universalism and states "the only thing more dangerous than the individual ego is the group ego". Church dogma and doctrine can be helpful but eventually need to point to the greater authority – which can only be found in our hearts. Don't blame your church for something you yourself need to take responsibility!

Many Catholics see official church teachings as the final word on many of the issues facing the world today. These same individuals believe that to be a 'good Catholic' means to accept these teachings without question and without any private or personal discernment- and the need to interpret these teachings against the greater Gospel values.

Stop bickering about who is right and who is wrong. Who is in and who is out. Let us begin by trusting the God within - as I'm sure Sr. Margaret McBride and her patient did make this very private and difficult decision. Grant them and yourself the peace that Jesus confers on them.

Our struggle to Love

Note: I decided to publish the following article by retired Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu which recently appeared in the Washington Post on this blog due to the hatred that is still being forced on some people of God living on the fringes of our society. At the same time I want to provide some background illustrating how this hatred is sometimes reinforced through institutional religion. The latter article was prompted due to the actions instigated by Archbishop Chaput and Fr. Breslin in my previous blog.

In Africa, a step backward on human rights

By Desmond Tutu
Friday, March 12, 2010; A19

Hate has no place in the house of God. No one should be excluded from our love, our compassion or our concern because of race or gender, faith or ethnicity -- or because of their sexual orientation. Nor should anyone be excluded from health care on any of these grounds. In my country of South Africa, we struggled for years against the evil system of apartheid that divided human beings, children of the same God, by racial classification and then denied many of them fundamental human rights. We knew this was wrong. Thankfully, the world supported us in our struggle for freedom and dignity.

It is time to stand up against another wrong.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are part of so many families. They are part of the human family. They are part of God's family. And of course they are part of the African family. But a wave of hate is spreading across my beloved continent. People are again being denied their fundamental rights and freedoms. Men have been falsely charged and imprisoned in Senegal, and health services for these men and their community have suffered. In Malawi, men have been jailed and humiliated for expressing their partnerships with other men. Just this month, mobs in Mtwapa Township, Kenya, attacked men they suspected of being gay. Kenyan religious leaders, I am ashamed to say, threatened an HIV clinic there for providing counselling services to all members of that community, because the clerics wanted gay men excluded.

Uganda's parliament is debating legislation that would make homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment, and more discriminatory legislation has been debated in Rwanda and Burundi.

These are terrible backward steps for human rights in Africa.

Our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters across Africa are living in fear.

And they are living in hiding -- away from care, away from the protection the state should offer to every citizen and away from health care in the AIDS era, when all of us, especially Africans, need access to essential HIV services. That this pandering to intolerance is being done by politicians looking for scapegoats for their failures is not surprising. But it is a great wrong. An even larger offense is that it is being done in the name of God. Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God.

"But they are sinners," I can hear the preachers and politicians say. "They are choosing a life of sin for which they must be punished." My scientist and medical friends have shared with me a reality that so many gay people have confirmed, I now know it in my heart to be true. No one chooses to be gay. Sexual orientation, like skin color, is another feature of our diversity as a human family. Isn't it amazing that we are all made in God's image, and yet there is so much diversity among his people? Does God love his dark- or his light-skinned children less? The brave more than the timid? And does any of us know the mind of God so well that we can decide for him who is included, and who is excluded, from the circle of his love?

The wave of hate must stop. Politicians who profit from exploiting this hate, from fanning it, must not be tempted by this easy way to profit from fear and misunderstanding. And my fellow clerics, of all faiths, must stand up for the principles of universal dignity and fellowship. Exclusion is never the way forward on our shared paths to freedom and justice.

The writer is archbishop emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984.

A brief background on the development of CATHOLIC teaching on homosexuality in recent times.

When they had told me at St.Mary's School in Alexandria that His Holiness could not make a mistake, I had no trouble believing it. – James Carrol, Constantine's Sword

No one should actually be surprised with the reasoning provided by Archbishop Chaput and Fr. Breslin after all the Church affirms today that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil".

However, 'A New Catechism-Catholic Faith for Adults' published shortly after Vatican II in 1969 spoke of homosexuality in these terms: "It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown. In their human isolation, they look for friendship. But even where they find true and loyal responses, the perfect fulfilment of their human longings is not granted them"

Compare that compassionate view with the one expressed by Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal to the Bishops of the Church, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986) describing homosexuality as "an intrinsic moral evil and that gay services are not to be tolerated and that Church facilities cannot be made available [for them]".

The 1993 Catechism of the Catholic Church would eventually reflect many of Ratzinger's ideas such as his repeated condemnations of homosexual orientation as "objectively disordered". According to David Gibson author of 'The Rule of Benedict' the CDF* criticised civil antidiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians. And, in 1998 the CDF* had the U.S. bishops rewrite portions of their pastoral letter to parents of homosexuals as a "deep-seated" rather than "fundamental" dimension of personality, and deleted a passage that encouraged the use of terms such as homosexual, gay, and lesbian from the pulpit in or to give people permission to discuss homosexuality. Again in 2003 Ratzinger's office issued a statement against civil unions for homosexuals that described adoption by gay couples as a form of "violence" against children and "gravely immoral". The Pope has been very clear about his position on Vatican II and his desire to build a church on strict orthodoxy even to include the likes of the Society St.Pius X.
* Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

In 2008 the Vatican refused to sign a declaration before the U.N. that sought to decrminalize homosexuality worldwide. Earlier, in 2004 the Vatican teamed up with Islamist dictatorships to thwart a resolution before the U.N. sponsored by Brazil that opposed homophobic violence and discrimination. The main thrust of the Vatican's position hinged on envoy Archbishop Migliori's argument that signing the document might "pilory" countries where homosexuality is illegal

and force them to create "new categories" protected from discrimination." Today most western nations, including the EU endorse the UN resolution.

So, again no one should actually be surprised with the reasoning provided by Chaput and Breslin. Pope Benedict XVI has almost single-handedly been responsible for changing and shaping Catholic attitudes towards homosexuality. For those people whose faith is deeply anchored in the Church homosexuality will remain an evil to be hated and combated. However those who stand firm in their faith based on a merciful, compassionate and unconditionally loving God will know better.

Have we forgotten: first it was antisemitism now it is homosexuals?