12 Things Roman Catholics need to know about same-sex marriage.

Sts. Serge & Bacchus

There are still  some  people who wish to see homosexuality and same-sex marriage as a sin greater than almost any other sin.  Many uninformed Traditionalist Catholics continue to defend this position based on the very negative definitions first provided in the 1993 Catechism of the Catholic Church whereby homosexual acts are viewed as ‘intrinsically evil’ and ‘gravely depraved’.  Perhaps due to the fear of contradicting church teachings many of these uninformed Traditionalists prefer to use homosexuals as scapegoats to shield themselves from their own shortcomings.  Meanwhile Traditionalist clergy within the church continue to defend their position on homosexuality at every opportunity claiming that any opposition to this claim is not only sinful but constitutes a direct disobedience to church teachings which somehow, according to the U.S. bishops, even violates ‘freedom of religion’.         

So far the Roman Catholic Church along with several other fundamentalist Christian faiths are refusing to accept the real facts or truths behind this ongoing battle.  For that reason I submit the following response:

12 Things Roman Catholics need to know about same-sex marriage.

1.       Homosexuality is not an option.  The condition is entirely due to a hormonal imbalance during the last weeks of pregnancy  affecting these innocent individuals in greater or lesser degrees.

2.       Prior to the issuance of the 1993 Catechism homosexuality was acknowledged as a condition for which its cause was unknown.

3.       All Catholics regardless of race, age, nationality or sex and sexual orientation, state of life or social position have the right to receive all the sacraments for which they are adequately prepared (Canon 213, 843).

4.       Gay ‘conversion therapy’ does not work.  Exodus International, an organization whose mission for almost 40 years was to “help” gays Christians become straight, recently shut down its operation admitting that the therapy did not work.  Exodus apologized for “being part of the very system of ignorance that perpetuated hurt”.

5.       The Acts of the Apostles states that Christians have no right to declare unclean anything that God has made (Acts of the Apostles 10:15).  To do so, in fact, is a sin.

6.       Marriage can be defined as the unique and special form of committed friendship between sexually attracted persons.  Marriage is a supreme human good involving exclusive, committed, enduring, generous, and faithful love, and this kind of love is not something that only heterosexuals can achieve.

7.       The view that homosexual people are condemned to involuntary celibacy for life is as cruel as it is absurd.  Jesus said of celibacy: “Let those accept it who can” (Matthew 19:12).

8.       When there is a debate on a moral issue (in this case same-sex union), Roman Catholics are free and encouraged to inform and make up their own minds about Church teachings. (Canon 748.1)

9.       Vatican II declared that marriage is not exclusively reserved for pro-creation but rather on one based on love. Not all heterosexual couples are capable of producing life, so why punish homosexuals?  With regard to the transmission of life, ‘Parents themselves should ultimately make the judgment in the sight of God’  (GS 50).

10.   The Catholic Church actually honoured same-sex marriage through Saints Serge and Bacchus whose marriage is preserved in a seventh century icon which shows Jesus as the official witness, or best man at their wedding. 

11.   We have no moral right to declare marriage off limits to persons whom God has made gay.  We have not right to say that marriage, with all of its advantages and beauty, is a reward for being heterosexual.

12.   Those who claim that the Bible condemns same-sex activities must read these passages in their proper context and with the understanding that there are many more passages that cannot be interpreted without the knowledge and understanding we have reached today.   

 

The Roman Catholic Church’s claim that homo-sexual couples and same-sex marriages do not constitute Traditional families and cannot therefore be accepted into the Church is clearly wrong and contradicts the true meaning of Christianity.

Putting the matter in its proper perspective Franciscan priest Richard Rohr recently stated “homosexuality was never a criterion of proper membership for the first 2000 years but reflects very recent culture wars instead. 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.”

 

 

The Church admits its mistakes

'The pedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation.'—Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini



Carlo Maria Martini, SJ
(15 February 1927 - 31 August 2012)

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, 85, died Friday and his interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera was published the next day. In the interview, Martini urged the church to enact radical changes. He lambasted the church for being “tired as our culture has aged and is at least 200 years behind.  Our churches are big and empty while our rituals and our cassocks are pompous. So why doesn't it rouse itself? Is it afraid?".

Martini also emphasized that “The Church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the pope and the bishops. The pedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation."

Once the archbishop of Milan, the Cardinal had been tipped as a possible future pope. During his time leading the largest diocese in Europe, he was outspoken and often critical in his remarks and writings about the church. Martini retired in 2002, suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

His criticism of the church covered a wide area and frequently came into direct conflict with  church governance and its doctrine.

For example he called for greater collegiality in the governance of the Church and urged continued reflection on the structure and exercise of ecclesiastical authority. He demonstrated a desire for further theological enquiry on issues relating to human sexuality and the role of women in the Church. He expressed support for the ordination of female deacons.

In a September 2004 message to a symposium on the Holy Land and interreligious dialogue, the cardinal wrote that Christians who visit Jerusalem should suspend judgment on the political situation there and simply pray for both sides. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict had become so complicated and painful that even an expert would have trouble sorting it out, he said.

In a November 2004 speech at Rome's Gregorian University, he told Catholics they could not understand their faith unless they understood the Jewish faith practiced by Jesus and his disciples.

 

In March 2007 he openly criticised the attitude of the Church authorities, while speaking at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem to a congregation of over 1,300 visitors, he remarked that "The Church does not give orders." Martini stated that "It is necessary to listen to others, and when speaking to use terms that they understand."

In his book Credere e conoscere, published shortly before his death, Martini set out his disagreement with the Catholic teaching against homosexual civil unions. “I disagree with the positions of those in the Church, that take issue with civil unions”, he wrote. “It is not bad, instead of casual sex between men, that two people have a certain stability” and that the “state could recognize them.” Although he stated his belief that "the homosexual couple, as such, can never be totally equated to a marriage" he also said that he could understand (although not necessarily approve) of gay pride parades when they support the need for self-affirmation.

The cardinal also said the reformed liturgy that came out of the Second Vatican Council marked "a real step forward" in nourishing Catholics "with the word of God, offered in a much more abundant way than before," with a much larger selection of Scripture readings.

In 2007, in a letter to an Italian newspaper, Cardinal Martini expressed qualified support for a patient’s right to die, urging the Vatican to honor the requests of terminally ill patients who ask “in all lucidity” for life-prolonging treatments to be withdrawn.

In a 2008 book-length interview titled "Nighttime Conversations in Jerusalem," Cardinal Martini said Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae" ("Of Human Life"), which taught that artificial birth control was morally wrong, led many Catholics to distance themselves from the church and from listening to and being challenged by the Catholic vision of human sexuality.

To think I had never before heard about this incredibly courageous individual before?       

Human Rights and Same-sex Marriage

 Catholic News Service reported today that The Catholic Church condemns violence and discrimination against homosexual persons, but recognizing same-sex unions as a marriage devalues the unique identity and social contributions of the union of a man and a woman, a Vatican official told the U.N. Human Rights Council.Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, Vatican observer at U.N. agencies in Geneva, told the council March 9 that the Vatican "condemns discrimination and violence against any human person, including those who are so targeted because of perceived sexual differences."

The Human Rights Council was discussing a report on "Discriminatory Laws and Practices and Acts of Violence against Individuals Based on their Sexual Orientation."

While the report noted international law does not require states to recognize same-sex unions, Archbishop Tomasi said Navi Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, proposed that states have an obligation to "ensure that unmarried same-sex couples are treated in the same way and entitled to the same benefits as unmarried opposite-sex couples."

The archbishop said, "The Holy See expresses grave concern that, under the guise of 'protecting' people from discrimination and violence on the basis of perceived sexual differences, this council may be running the rise of demeaning the sacred and time-honored legal institution of marriage between man and woman."

Traditional marriage has "enjoyed special protection from time immemorial within legal, cultural and religious traditions and within the modern human rights instruments, starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," he said.

Marriage was afforded special recognition because the relationship between a man and woman, who commit to staying together for life and are open to having and raising children, benefits all the individuals involved, and "makes a unique and essential contribution to the public good," the archbishop said.

Marriage "provides the best conditions for raising children; namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and a father," he said.

Discrimination and violence against homosexuals or any other group of people violates internationally recognized human rights laws, he said, and acts of discrimination and violence should be punished by local or national authorities.

However, he said, the Vatican opposes efforts to "define new categories" of persons requiring special protection under international human rights laws.

The right to life, liberty and security "should and must be universally respected and enjoyed," he said. "Efforts to particularize or to develop special rights for special groups of people could easily put at risk the universality of those rights."

To date the Vatican is the only country in the western world that has refused to sign the U.N. declaration that decriminalizes homosexuality.  Remember there remain many countries today that jail or execute homosexuals.  At the same time the Vatican claims that same-sex unions as a marriage devalues the unique identity and social contributions of the union of a man and a woman.

How any loving couple's sexual behaviour is affected by the marriage of another heterosexual or homosexual couple is yet to be explained by anyone from the Vatican. At the same time it is obvious that the Vatican has a very limited or poor understanding of what constitutes a `traditional marriage`.  Here are just a few biblical examples that were obviously overlooked by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi.  For example Abraham, Jacob all had concubines. Solomon it is said had more than 300.  Genesis 16 tells us that a married man could acquire his wife`s property including her slaves. Nor were many biblical heroes exempt from polygamy.  Esau and Jacob shared several wives, while Solomon enjoyed more than 700.  Genesis 38:6-10  reveals that a widow who had not borne a son was required to marry her brother in law, and must submit sexually to her new husband.  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 shares that a virgin who is raped must marry her rapist.  However the rapist must pay victim`s father 50 shekels of silver for property loss.  Numbers 31:1-18 and Deuteronomy 21:11-14  announce that under Moses` command Israelites were to kill every ‘Midianite man, woman and child, save for the virgin girls who are taken as spoil of war.  Again, wives must submit sexually to their new owners. Exodus21:4 explains that a slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves.  Female slaves must submit sexually to their new husbands.

Ofcourse I am not suggesting that anthing goes. But reading scripture it seems to me that God was not the least bit concerned about the sexual mores of David, Solomon and many others.  Could it be that God is more interested in our potential than our sins?   Could it be that God values our heart above all other things?  Could it be that loving and committed homosexual couples are a special gift rather than a curse from God?

Finally, is a heterosexual marriage any more or any less fragile than that of a homosexual couple?  Are the children of a heterosexual couple more loved and cared for than by a homosexual couple? 

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.  

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'

the culture that allows sex abuse to happen

There have been numerous occasions throughout this blog that I have spoken out about the Catholic Church’s struggle with the ongoing sexual abuse crisis, as well as its growing militant attitude on abortions and other areas of human sexuality such as homosexuality, celibacy, condoms masturbation, same-sex marriage, partcularly when they are expressed in absolute terms.

Why does a religion remain so fearful about a gift from God when those sexual abuse issues are clearly threatening to destroy the very fabric of the institution?  THE TRUTH NEEDS TO BE TOLD. When will the hierarchy finally accept its duplicity in creating a culture that allowed the sexual abuse to bring so much pain and suffering in the world? THE TRUTH NEEDS TO BE TOLD. Why does the church still remain in denial? THE TRUTH NEEDS TO BE TOLD.  Considering the recent advances to help us break through a better understanding of human behaviour why does our Church still rely on theological definitions established by St. Augustine in the fourth century A.D.- especially in light of his own struggle with sexuality.  The Church continues to uphold its traditions as unchangeable and from an exclusive patriarchal point of view.  God, on the other hand moves with us through time, even though his unconditional love for humankind remains unchanged. God meets us where we are – not where others would have us be. Does the Church truly believe that God does not play a role in the discoveries in science and human understanding?  Surely, the revelations made known by individuals such as Galileo made this all too painfully clear? THE TRUTH NEEDS TO BE TOLD.

Most religions today, particularly those with a fundamentalist background, appear unable or unwilling to accept change and will quickly condemn anyone with different views. Christians do well to recall the price Jesus paid for attempting to introduce change in his community.

There are a few people who have the strength and courage to challenge our beliefs and understandings.  This week one such person spoke up at a gathering on April 4 at Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee - his name is Archbishop  Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, Ireland.  Here follows his complete address as it appears on the Archdiocese of Dublin website.  A condensed version is also  available on the National Catholic Reporters website of April 5th.      For full video of Martin's talk, visit the page on the Marquette University Web site.  The two day conference took place under the banner 'Restorative Justice Initiative' includes many speakers, including several victims of sexual abuse as well as Archbishop Martin.  

Having read and watched significant portions of this debate I am encouraged by the positive approach to this crisis which continues to impact our society at large. THE TRUTH NEEDS TO BE TOLD.