Showing posts with label freedom of conscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of conscience. Show all posts

Monday, 11 March 2013

Faith versus Religion

In what must be one of the most offensive and un-Christian attacks by Christian fundamentalists on homosexuals and transsexuals while claiming to defend their Christian faith is described in the following article carried by the National Catholic Register 3/11/2013 under the  headline ‘Diocese fears recent revisions will compromise religious freedom by forcing acceptance of homosexual behavior’.  


Christian fundamentalist, seem to fear the so called loss of ‘religious freedom’ whenever they feel challenged about their false beliefs. They now suggest that homosexuals and transsexuals are an impediment to their faith and thereby threatens their freedom of religion. Since faith is a gift from God one would think these individuals should at least realize what Jesus promised his followers in John 10:28.  No nothing can take away God’s gift of faith.

As the article by  Canadian freelance writer Steve Weatherbe states “Christian critics, including the Diocese of Phoenix, fear the code can be used to force churches  and private businesses to hire homosexuals, to let transsexuals use either the men’s or women’s washrooms and to justify punitive fines against businesses that make homosexuals or transgendered feel “unwelcome.”

This is not the first time Bishop J. Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ has tried to muddy the religious waters.  In the spring of 2010 he excommunicated a Catholic nun for  her role in allowing an abortion to take place at the local hospital when it was considered necessary to save the life of a critically ill mother of four.

There is no question that the waters of Religious Freedom have been muddied over the last few years.  In the Catholic world the topic is being bandied about by those who feel threatened by the idea of same-sex attraction or marriage, the bullying of homosexual students, and frequent but patently false accusations from homophobes connecting sexual abuse by homosexual priests as being responsible for the sexual abuse scandal in the Church.      

Religious Freedom is now frequently used to garner political points or statements rather than  a means of ensuring the freedom to practise one’s religion or faith. In the western world Freedom of Religion is guaranteed under each country's individual charter along with the inclusion of 'Separation of Church and State'.  The latter is intended to prevent the State from supporting any one religion or from interfering with it.  At the same time it also obliges religion to leave the public sphere open to all.  When both sides respect the boundaries, secularism provides a framework for freedom of conscience, tolerance and democracy.  Secularism does not guarantee human rights but it helps make them possible.

It seems that an awful lot of Christian fundamentalists prefer to remain in the dark about the real causes of homosexuality (see Homosexuality: real causes ) and their understanding of transgendered individuals.  Perhaps they simply need an excuse to vent their own anger and pain.  However, it is not a license to hurl insults and pain on others who did not choose the cross they bear. To do so, takes away their religious freedom. It does not give religious fundamentalists such as bishop Olmstead the right to condemn them.  Is it not time to thank God for the diversity of his many gifts. Lets each of us discover the God within especially in ALL others.

It took the Roman Catholic Church almost 500 years to accept that the world was not the centre of the universe.  Hopefully it will not take them another 500 years to learn the real causes behind homosexuality and transgender.  
Finally, we need to understand the simple difference between ‘faith’ and ‘religion’.
Faith (Hebrew) aman, be firm, true; Latin fides, trust, confidence.) Faith is a gift from God that allows people to believe and trust in his love and protection.
Religion (Latin religio,) An organisation of people who follow a special set of rules, beliefs and practises in their effort to carry out their duties to their god and other people, e.g. the Christian religion.    

Saturday, 10 March 2012

Religious Terms


Some topical religious terms which may be helpful to readers of this blog.



Abortion grays: This is a term used to refer to those adults who are not strongly pro-life or pro-choice. They have reservations about abortion but do not wish to see it criminalized. They may well form the majority of adults. They are as opposed to enforced childbirth for every pregnant woman as they are to completely free access to abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason.





ABSOLUTISM:  The belief that absolute truths exist in the field of ethics and morality.  Typically, these truths are extracted from a holy text.  The term is analogous with the old concept that a monarchy held the ultimate authority in a state.  This was typically a king who claimed to rule by divine right. The opposite of ABSOLUTISM is RELATiVISM



Concordats: are international treaties with the Vatican that may range from granting little more than diplomatic recognition to a legally binding commitment to observe key aspects of Vatican doctrine and to have taxpayers subsidise the Church. Because the state may be put under pressure to enforce these Vatican policies.



DUALISM: The view that there are only two fundamental principles in the universe, such as good and evil or spirit and matter. They are generally opposites.  Under this concept there are no gray areas and everything is divided into pairs.  Such a belief implies the existence of two equal gods that are in conflict with each other rather than a compassionate and forgiving Creator who meets us where we are not where others would have us be.    



FAITH:  A system of religious belief.  There are many and they conflict with each other, but ultimately a gift from God.



FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:  The question of religious liberty or conscience was one of the hottest contested issues fought during Vatican II between liberals and conservatives. Its intent was to give individuals (People of God) their God given right to claim primacy over Church teachings. The debate ended in the now familiar constitution which reads:

“Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law that they have not laid upon themselves but which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid what is evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity lies in observing this law, and by it they will be judged . . . By conscience that law is made known in a wonderful way that is fulfilled in love for God and for one's neighbour. Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to others in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems that arise both in the lives of individuals and in social relationships.” - Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World

Today Traditional Catholics are again challenging this ruling from Vatican II especially in such areas as abortion, the use of condoms, homosexuality, contraception, treatment of HIV/aids.  In some extreme cases some Traditional bishops have threatened or applied sanctions on laity who challenged Church teachings by applying  such measures as excommunication or access to communion.  



FREEDOM OF RELIGION:  Individuals in North American and most European countries  are guaranteed a freedom to practise their faith without any interference from the state.  This same right is not however extended to religious institutions when they seek to impose their beliefs onto the rest of the nation – see SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE



FUNDAMENTALISTS: Within Christianity, this is a term used since the 1920's to refer to the most religiously conservative groups within Protestant Christianity. Within Judaism, Islam and other religions, the term is used to refer to the extreme conservative wing who Karen Armstrong defines as "embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis" namely the fear that modernity will erode or even eradicate their faith and morality.



HOMOSEXUALITY: In all its forms lesbian, trans-sexual, etc. Human sexuality researchers and therapists have reached a near consensus that homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation, one of three natural, normal orientations, mainly caused by variation in one's hormones. see here. It is unchosen and unchangeable. Many religious conservatives believe that it is an unnatural, abnormal lifestyle, mainly caused by inadequate parenting. Some think it is chosen, and can be changed. Traditional Catholics such as Pope Benedict XVI continue to oppose scientific and medical evidence to the contrary.

    

RELATIVISM: A philosophical belief that many forms of "truth" -- particularly in the area of morals and ethics are relative and not absolute. That is, it varies from time to time and culture to culture. Antonym: absolutism.



SECULARISM: the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries(see Wikipedia).  Being SECULAR  does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way Martin Luther used to speak of "secular work" as a vocation from God for most Christians
When Pope Benedict XVI speaks of SECULARISM he means anyone who does not belong to the one and only TRUE Church and are therefore not Roman Catholic. Some opponents of church-state separation redefine “secularism” as “state neutrality” to allow their group (among others) to get state funding. Others try to discredit it by confusing “secularism” with “atheism”. But it's a political, rather than a religious doctrine and its purpose is to help level the playing field in order to give a better chance for human rights. See also: TEMPORAL



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:   In the Western world most countries have adopted the ‘separation of State and church or religion’. While such separation prevents the State from supporting any religion or from interfering with it also obliges religion to leave the public sphere open to all. When both sides respect the boundaries, secularism provides a framework for freedom of conscience, tolerance and democracy. Secularism does not guarantee human rights but it helps make them possible.


SLIPPERY SLOPE:  In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but is usually known under its fallacious form in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground. - Wikipedia

TEMPORAL: Of or relating to the material world; worldly: the temporal possessions of the Church.

THEOCRACY: The opposite of secularism can be found in a theocratic nation which is run under the direct control or of a particular or chosen religious institution. Theocracy exists in many countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. It is well known that many of these theocratic nations are found to be responsible for many horrific human abuses. However, that is not to say that a theocratic State could not be run free of such abuses.

Theology VS Mysticism
      Theology: The art of telling stories about the Divine. Also the art of listening to them.
      Mysticism: The art of tasting and feeling in your heart the inner meaning of such stories to the point that they transform you.  

Current high profile topics in the U.S. -- with a religious component:
Of the hundreds of religious topics saturating the news, the following appear to have the highest profile right now. It is interesting that 5 of the 7 topics are related to human sexuality and/or gender. The following seem to be the most important current topics of concern to many faith groups:

Same-sex marriage: What rights and protections should same-sex couples and their children have? Should they be allowed to marry, or be only registered in civil unions, or be allowed only to enter domestic partnerships, or be legally considered "legal strangers" -- merely as roommates? In mid-2013, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially overturned Proposition 8: a California referendum in 2008 that banned same-sex marriages in the state. Marriages are now available to same-sex couples in that state, in 12 other states and in the District of Columbia.
bulletAbortion access: In what situations should informed women be free to choose to have an abortion: all, none, or some? What are the best ways to reduce abortions: by restricting access or by making childbirth more feasible, or by increasing contraceptive usage. Would educating sexually active youth in how to prevent pregnancy and STIs help or hinder?
bulletIslamophobia: This involves fear, anger, hatred, discomfort, and/or discrimination directed against Muslims. Some target the 19 perpetrators of 9/11; some a group of violent radicals within Islam; some against all of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims.
bulletReligious freedom:  This term has two very different meanings. In the past it referred to people being free to believe as they wish, assemble with others of the same religious tradition, engage in different religious practices, proselytize freely, etc. However, it is now often used to mean something very different: to use religious freedom to oppress, denigrate, and attack women and minorities -- particularly sexual minorities.
bulletThe fight against the HHS birth control mandate: A recent Health and Human Services mandate requires most employee health insurance policies -- including those used by Catholic hospitals, universities, agencies, etc. -- to offer free access to birth control to the employees.  The church feels that it is their religious right to fight its employees' access to contraception. Many of their Catholic and non-Catholic employees beg to differ. Numerous court cases are being fought. If the mandate survives, then there is likely to be a drastic reduction in unexpected, unwanted pregnancies, and thus a massive drop in the number of abortions.
bullet"Federal Defense of Marriage act (DOMA):" This law originally prevented legally married same-sex couples and their children from obtaining any of the approximately 1,138 federal benefits, protections, and rights that were automatically given as special privileges only to opposite-sex married couples. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 2013-JUN-26 that Section 3 of the law was unconstitutional. Same-sex married couples now have the same rights as opposite-married couples subject to some limitations. This ruling is expected to have a major long term impact on LGBT equality because of the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
bullet"Boy Scouts of America" (BSA): The BSA prohibited LGBT youth and adults from joining, and expelled any such persons when they were discovered within the organization. Delegates to their annual meeting voted to allow LGBT youths to join, but to expell them at age 18. Conservative religious denominations and para church groups are outraged that LGBT youths are allowed to join; some are organizing groups in competition to the BSA.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Contraception and Religious Liberty Fails

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


Archbishop Timothy Dolan

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan of New York said Feb. 13 that President Barack Obama's proposed revision to the contraceptive mandate in the health reform law did nothing to change the U.S. bishops' opposition to what they regard as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.



Let me begin with the following letter sent to the New York Times, on February 6th.  from one of my favourite Catholic teachers about the above mentioned contraceptive mandate: 

To the Editor:

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.

The American bishops are at odds with other bishops in the Catholic world, with the vast majority of Catholic theologians and with 98 percent of the Catholic laity who have used contraceptives. They are even at odds with Pope Benedict XVI, who has approved the use of condoms “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection.” That concession logically ended the taboo on condoms since it said health care concerns can require the use of condoms.

The bishops’ claim that their religious freedom is threatened is bogus. The threat is to the religious freedom of their employees and to the conscientious freedom of the diverse public they serve in their tax-supported institutions.

DANIEL C. MAGUIRE

The writer is a professor of theology at Marquette University.

The question of religious liberty, regarding individual conscience versus obedience to the Church was one of the hotest contested issues fought during Vatican II between liberals and conservatives. In the end it resulted in the now familiar constitution which reads:





“Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law that they have not laid upon themselves but which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid what is evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity lies in observing this law, and by it they will be judged . . . By conscience that law is made known in a wonderful that is fulfilled in love for God and for one's neighbour. Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to others in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems that arise both in the lives of individuals and in social relationships.” - Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World





This freedom is further guaranteed and supported by the declaration On Religious Liberty which reads:





“The dignity of the human person is a concern of which people of our time are becoming increasingly more aware. In growing numbers people demand that they should enjoy the use of their own responsi­ble judgment and freedom and decide on their actions on grounds of duty and conscience, without external pressure or coercion. They also urge that bounds be set to government by law, so that the limits of reasonable freedom should not be too tightly drawn for persons or for social groups. This demand in human society for freedom is chiefly concerned with the values of the human spirit, above all with the free and public practice of religion”.





Finally one of my favourite Catholic teachers,Professor Daniel C. Maguire, posted this totally surprising commentary:
Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, in his younger and saner period, offered the following commentary on the Second Vatican Council: "Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against therequirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism". (Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. Vol. 5, 1976.) What the cardinal, some day to be pope, was saying is that bishops and popes who try to usurp the sacred prerogatives of conscience are totalitarian and need lessons humble of heart." This reflects the wisdom of Cardinal John Henry Newman when he famously said he would toast the pope, only after toasting his own conscience. Only in cults are religious leaders taken to be a substitute for conscience.






Catholics have begun to realize their individual role and responsibility to dialogue (not monologue) directly with our Creator. This applies to all of the challenges and trials we face each day. Including abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc., etc., By listening to God with our hearts Catholics are not disobeying the Church but rather following the advice, inspired by the Holy Spirit, through the hearts of the fathers of Vatican II.





Religious Freedom remains a thorn in the side of the most conservative and fearfilled element in our Church led by the present Pope. Imagine the loss of power and prestige is that is now at stake? The Holy Spirit’s desire to guide and teach the People of God has been ignored for too long.





Reference:



I John 2:27


1 Corinthians 2:10-12


2 Corinthians 3:5-6

Ephesians 1:17-18

John 16:13

Matthew 7:7-8a




Saturday, 1 October 2011

Secularism and Catholic Education


During his recent state sponsored visit to Germany Pope Benedict XVI once again warned about the spreading danger of secularism.  A favourite topic of his and one he likes to promote wherever he can find a world audience. including the annual World Youth conference in Spain last August.  Similar dire warnings are often repeated by many of his self appointed and loyal officials such as Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins.  Speaking at the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association conference in Ottawa Sept. 23 Collins decided to heighten the hype by referring to secularism as something we are now “marinated” in.


Secularism: the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries(see Wikipedia).


The opposite of secularism can be found in a theocratic nation which is run under the direct control or of a particular or chosen religious institution.  Theocracy   exists in many countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.  It is well known that many of these theocratic nations are found to be responsible for many horrific human abuses. However, that is not to say that a theocratic State could not be run free of such abuses.


In the Western world most countries have adopted the separation of State and church or religion. But here follows the importance of such legislation. While separation of church and state prevents the State from supporting any religion or from interfering with it also obliges religion to leave the public sphere open to all.  When both sides respect the boundaries, secularism provides a framework for freedom of conscience, tolerance and democracy.  Secularism does not guarantee human rights but it helps make them possible.  But as long as the world religions are unable to dialogue and find peace among them there will be no peace in the world (Hans Kung) .


When the Vatican talks about Secularism it seems to be suggest “there is only one true religion and that is Roman rule or Catholicism as narrowly defined by Pope Benedict XVI”.  Remember Benedict has indicated on many occasions that he wants a smaller church – a church that is based on strict orthodoxy (absolutism) and considers all other religions as inferior. In an effort to blame its problems on modernism, relativism and secularism Benedict continues to block the progress and enthusiasm that was generated by Vatican II.  It has effectively stifled any progress on further ecumenism.


Secularism is a thorn in the side of the church when it comes to Catholic Education particularly when such education is publically funded.  Archbishop Collins speaking to Catholic educators stressed that in order for Catholic education to be fervently Catholic “we need to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of our schools. But what he failed to mention was that this requires an absolute obedience to Church teachings – even at the expense of one’s higher and informed conscience. 


Traditionalists must not forget  that the Catholic school system in Ontario is now also supported by those so-called ‘secular ’ tax payers most (90%) of whom also believe in God. Not all Catholics have a problem with this and many more would like to see a more inclusive approach to religion one that includes dialogue with other faiths. Being followers of Christ is not about belonging to some exclusive club. Jesus did not limit his teaching/healing to people of his Jewish background.  Catholics are not prevented from exercising their individual rights thanks largely in part to the separation of church and state. A Catholic, who chooses not to enter into a same-sex marriage, obtain an abortion, etc., is free to do so. However, that same individual must respect the right of others to choose otherwise. Jesus referred to this as rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Catholics are free to teach their respective ethics and morals. However, they must also respect the individual rights of others. They cannot be enforced on all. Remember slavery and the death penalty were at one time promoted in many Christian countries.  Our faith is a free gift from God and has nothing to do with what others do or believe.

The future of Catholic education does not depend on promoting strict Catholic orthodoxy but to paraphrase Pope John XXIII opening windows that will embrace the Spirit of inclusion and finding God in all people and all faiths.  This could also mean finding God in where people are – not where we would have them be.  Such a change is the very dynamic of the Holy Spirit.  Yes, this could be a serious blow to many Traditionalists but the Roman Church must no longer use old wine skins to solve the problems of today.  Jesus meets us in the here and now – not in the yesterday, not in the tomorrow.


Bishop Collins, administrators and the various users of the Catholic School system cannot ignore the fact when such schools are publically funded it includes many of those dreaded secularist.  Finally, it is hoped that the the real 'treasure' of Catholicism will be found in the ordinary people, the laity and the secular supporters who are already fully prepared to work for such a change.   

Finally, some readers may be asking "Should Catholic schools take in children of other faiths"?  For a thoughtfull opinion on this question please refer to the article ' When are Catholic schools no longer Catholic?' as it appeared in a recent edition of 'The Tablet' a U.K. based weekly magazine for Catholics - click here.   

Saturday, 26 February 2011

Competing Catholic Catechisms

There have been several official Roman Catholic Catechisms since the Council of Trent. It will surprise some readers that these have not always agreed on every aspect of Catholic belief or faith –perhaps none more so as it affects the question of homosexuality.

A New Catechism – Catholic Faith for Adults', The Seabury Press, New York, NY., (1973) ISBN 0-8164-1070-4 Nihil Obstat: Leo J. Steady, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur +Robert F. Joyce, Bishop of Burlington, September 1969. In the years following its issue, this Catechism was the only comprehensive book of its kind within the Church.

A New Catechism better known as the ‘Dutch Catechism’ was the first post-Vatican II Catholic catechism. It was commissioned and authorized by the Catholic hierarchy of the Netherlands and went through various publishers after reaching the North American market.

The above publication was the popular Catechism for Roman Catholics during the sixties and seventies. My wife and I originally received our (1967) copy from the Church upon completion of Interfaith classes in Toronto. Today Catholics are perhaps more familiar with the 1983 version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church from the CCCB.

The 1973 edition in comparison to the current Catechism is more user friendly; completely devoid of the 'top down' legalistic format and archaic language associated with the current 1983 edition from Rome.

The 1973 edition is still valid and legitimate for many practicing Catholics and available along with the Baltimore Catechism. In fact, the current 1983 edition reads: “This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms, duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See.”

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CATECHISMS

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1983) There are several inherent problems with the 1983 issue

The popular Catholic understanding that “Scripture presents homosexual acts as sinful . . . . contradicts the 1973 edition which holds:"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 . . . .The very sharp strictures of Scripture on homosexual practices (Gen. 1; Rom. 1) must be read in their context.”

Actually the Bible has no adequate treatment on homosexuality. There is no evidence to suggest that any biblical author had even a vague notion that homosexuality could be a lifelong disposition.

Official Catholic statements frequently used to support the unchanging traditions of the Church are usually preceded with the statement “tradition has always declared . . .’ clearly contradict the views held about homosexuality in these contradicting catechisms.

Additionally, it is well known that perhaps as many as one-third of Catholic priest are homosexual. It is most likely that many of them are sexually active.

The 1983 Catechism declares “homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity” and as intrinsically disordered”. These highly volatile statements are frequently used by some people to condemn homosexuals in general. Such language can be found among fundamentalist to promote an atmosphere of physical and emotional hatred even death. Its victims are denigrated as less, unwanted or  evil – resulting in much emotional suffering and sometimes lead to suicide. Efforts to compromise these damaging statements by announcing that Catholics must “love the person and hate the sin” appear meaningless and devoid of a Christ-like attitude of compassion.

Most practicing Catholics do not possess a copy of a Catholic Catechism. Exposure to current teachings on homosexuality is extremely limited due to the controversial nature as well of lack of understanding by members of the clergy on the subject.

Neither The Catechism of The Council of Trent (1566) nor the Baltimore Catechism (the de facto standard Catholic school text in the North America from 1885 to the late 1960s) include any specific reference to homosexuality.

On Natural Law

Arguments that homosexuality contravenes ‘Natural Law’ must be tempered by the primacy of ‘Freedom of Conscience'. According to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, we discover the natural law in the depths of our conscience. The natural law is written in the human heart by God. “To obey it is the very dignity of the human person; according to it the human person will be judged” (n. 16; see also the Declaration on Religious Freedom, nn. 2, 3, 14).

These comparisons reveal the depths and gulf that currently exists between some Roman Catholic teachings since Vatican II. Many priests are emotionally and physically exhausted by these contentious issues. Vatican II, like it or not – either it happened or none of the previous twenty-one councils did not take place either.

To suppress sexuality, regardless of gender preferences, inevitably results in different forms of abuse. We need to address the issue of homosexuality and human sexuality (chastity) in an honest and Christ like manner – not in the vindictive and often confusing language emanating from Rome.

Many people may not approve of blatant outward expressions of homosexuality, parades, etc.  after years of persecution perhaps we would do the same thing.

Marriage, Homosexuality, Contraception

We need to dispel the Catholic understanding that the act of Homosexuality is a sin because it goes against the totality that the marital act requires.

The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World no longer insisted that the primary purpose of the marital act was about begetting children. The central focus of this document is now on the love between the two spouses, through their life in Jesus Christ. Church teaching on the marital state requires spousal acceptance of each other's failures and faults and the recognition that the "call to holiness in marriage" is one that requires a process of spiritual growth and conversion that can last throughout life.
The Catholic Church has reached a stage of intense crisis as far as authority in matters of human sexuality. Its credibility is weak. The official statements of the Church still hand down the black-and-white prescriptions of the past with hardly any reference to advances in the human sciences or even to the latest findings in scriptural, dogmatic and moral theology.



Finally, to quote Fr. Thomas Bokenkotter, author of Dynamic Cathlicism, “Homosexuals who seek to fulfill their sexual needs in the context of a stable, loving relationship are not acting immorally. Their decision of conscience should be respected by the Church and they should be welcomed to the Eucharistic table.”




On Contraception

Pope Paul's message was that it is immoral for a married couple to have sex merely to express mutual love, that they must also preserve the possibility of procreation. His logical mistake was to claim that the hapless rhythm method of birth control (periodic abstinence) could be approved because it retained an intrinsic link to procreation -- when, in fact, both partners were seeking to avoid procreation.

A few theologians pointed out Paul's errors publicly and incurred the wrath of the church. Charles Curran, for example, who led a group of protesting theologians, was forbidden to continue teaching moral theology at Catholic University.

For those who sensed the specter of 'Catholic Conservatism' or those  opposed to the work of Vatican II;  the following article from Time Magazine, December 1, 1967 might be of interest.

"Catechism in Dutch

Some Roman Catholic prelates have done all they could to discourage U.S. circulation of the Dutch catechism (TIME, Aug. 18, 1967), a lively, undogmatic compendium of doctrine that reflects the most recent radical insights of theologians and scripture scholars. First the Roman Curia ordered a thorough study of the Dutch original to make sure that it contained no errors. Then Bishop Robert F. Joyce of Burlington, Vt., withdrew his imprimatur (permission to publish) from the American edition, and Holland's Bernard Jan Cardinal Alfrink complained that the book was going to press with an unauthorized use of his original imprimatur. Finally, Los Angeles' crusty James Francis Cardinal Mclntyre banned it from the church-run bookstore in his archdiocese. The stores operated by Boston's Daughters of St. Paul also refused to display it.

Nonetheless, the Dutch catechism has become one of the year's religious bestsellers. Herder & Herder, publisher of the American edition, reports that its first printing of 75,000 copies was sold out in three weeks. Although the National Conference of Catholic Bishops this month decided that the catechism should not be used in parochial schools, some Catholic colleges have ordered it for their religion courses. What was written for the Dutch is apparently destined to instruct the world. In The Netherlands, where the catechism has sold more than 400,000 copies so far, its publishers report that ten new translations will go to press in 1968".


Note:  I have been unable to discover the precise reason why the Vatican prelates tried unsuccessfully to ban the publication of the New Catholic Catechism.  If anyone knows I would appreciate  the exact reasoning behind it. It may not have had anything to do with the question of homosexuality.