You won’t be surprised to discover that we get all kinds of crazy letters here. And I don’t mean simply letters that seem odd or strange, or even letters that I don't fully understand—I mean crazy. As a Jesuit friend told me last night, “No nut like a religious nut.” One fellow sends me (regularly) a packet of folded-up colored paper with instructions on how this can be used to communicate with angels. Another correspondent mails pages and pages of tiny, mostly illegible, scrawl covering every inch of several pages, with Gospel passages underlined three times. So one learns to discount the nuttier letters. And one learns to accept more easily criticism from "non-nutty" people as well, even when it's delivered with sarcasm and invective. Finally, one learns to accept criticism from intelligent writers who write intelligently and help you see where you are being imprecise, inconsiderate, inaccurate or just plain wrong. Overall, when it comes to criticism, one's skin gets thicker over time.
On the other hand, some letters tend to stick out. This morning I was opening up yesterday’s mail and noticed an envelope without a return address (never a good sign). Inside was a copy of an Of Many Things column I had written about the beatification of John Paul II. In the article I mentioned that Blessed John Paul had, at one point in his papacy, removed Pedro Arrupe, S.J., the superior general of the Jesuits, from his post in 1981, a move that dismayed many Jesuits. The letter-writer had highlighted those few sentences in bright yellow. Next to it was a Post-it that read, in full: “But Jimmy, so many Jesuits were screaming fags that something had to be done, you know, to clean the filth out of the clergy.”
Not the pleasantest thing to read in the morning. And who knows whether this person is a subscriber or not. (He, or she, seems a bit cowardly though: the lack of a return address demonstrated a lack of resolve.) Odds are, though, if he's reading the print version of the magazine, he’s probably Catholic, and even if he's not a subscriber is likely reading it in a parish or a library. (We don’t sell on newsstands.) And he knew enough to quote Pope Benedict XVI on the “filth” in the church-- referring to pedophiles not gays, but no matter.
Homophobia is still out there, no matter how much we would wish to think of ourselves as an enlightened culture, and exists in our church. Thus, the need for June as “LGBT month,” as just proclaimed by President Obama.
On the other side of the coin, however, is a surprising op-ed in a Buffalo newpaper by Bishop Joseph Sullivan, retired auxiliary bishop of Brooklyn (pictured above in a somewhat dated photo). Someone sent me the link to his article just a few hours after I had read the anonymous letter this morning. In his piece, entitled “Catholics are Reaching out to the LGBT Community,” the bishop writes, in part:
Catholics and other religious people who support LGBT rights do so because of their experience of engagement with members of the LGBT community. They are not rebels in their churches, but people who have taken spiritual messages of inclusiveness and welcoming to heart. They are taking the church’s teaching on social justice and applying it to pastoral practice in engaging the LGBT community.
We see these teachings play out as Catholics across the country engage in prayerful and meaningful dialogues about understanding and embracing the LGBT community. This dialogue is happening amongst faithful families, in student groups on the campuses of Catholic universities, and within church congregations. This dialogue is admittedly difficult, at times, but important.
More than a decade ago, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a graceful message, “Always Our Children,” which reminded us, “For St. Paul love is the greatest of spiritual gifts. St. John considers love to be the most certain sign of God’s presence.” For most Catholics, there can be no statement that better summarizes an attitude of welcoming of our LGBT brothers and sisters than those of Jesus, “love one another as I have loved you.”
In fact, it's a surprise to hear a bishop use the term "LGBT," which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. Many Catholic leaders still use "homosexual," a word that the gay community has moved away from. (And shouldn't a group of people be free to call themselves what they want?)
In any event, it’s the classic “on the one hand, on the other hand.” On the one hand, despite warnings against discrimination against gays in the Catechism, which calls for gays and lesbians to be treated with "respect, sensitivity and compassion," there is still homophobia in the church. (The letter I received is only one of many examples that could be adduced.) On the other, there are many Catholics like Bishop Sullivan, who are trying to apply Gospel values to care pastorally for a group of marginalized people. It’s a big church, as one friend likes to say.
And I hope that as our big church moves ahead, it will sound more like Bishop Sullivan and less like my anonymous friend.
James Martin, SJ
I have come to know that there's a lot that I don't know. But I am quite sure that God honors faithful, committed love, wherever/however it happens.
First, gay men have been in key leadership positions in the Catholic Church for eons. So there's nothing new about that. And it's also so that these very same gay men have often been the most instrumental in preventing many women from holding leadership roles of true significance and meaning, apart from those women involved in religious congregations. Please don't take this as having anything to do with the notion of women as priests. That's just a smoke screen thrown up to cover up the more relevant discussion: Blatant, sanctioned sexism against women still reigns in many U.S. archdioceses. And this sexism is fostered by none other than men, many of them gay, who still rule in most venues. In some archdioceses, priests are trained to be particulary wary of women, especially single women within their parishes, fancying that the time-worn sagas of the occasional errant priest-lady parishioner scandal is the rule rather than the very, very isolated exception. (Do these fellas ever take a look in the mirror? Not all of them would be cast in ''The Thornbirds.'' ) One archbishop I heard about actually declined to include women in the Holy Week ''foot washing'' ritual, citing ''recent scandals.'' As if women had anything whatsoever to do with that! Gays think they feel unwelcomed in the Catholic church? Try being a divorced older Catholic woman! Now there's some good stigma for you!
Also, and this is TRULY poltiically incorrect: there's much too much made of sexuality, be it straight or same-sex, in the church and of course, out in the world where it so often seems to be the only thing that matters... The only important thing that defines us as humans. Really, aren't we so very, very much more than this? And can't we say so without being branded as ''repressed?'' I can already here the tut-tut's out there. Some day maybe we'll be able to address this subject with more authenticity and honesty. It's not that impossible to be celibate and happy. Really.
So, thank Heavens that Our Dear Lord is far more merciful in these matters than most of us will ever be. And, despite all of the human failings that too often cloud the picture, isn't it amazing that it is nevertheless possible still to come into contact with Our Lord's magnificent kindness and love when we avail ourselves of the ways open to us, including His blessed Sacraments, and His presence in our church.
My life, my spiritual life in fact has been greatly affected to the good by a wonderful homosexual priest. It is to his credit that I went back to college to complete my bachelor's degree in theology (I graduated at the ripe old age of 48) and went on to work for the church. God put this servent in my life so that I could grow closer to our Lord and begin to serve Him as well.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Peace
"Homophobia" is a good example. The fear of "homos" that I know of are the fear that an angry homosexual will act with vengeance towards me when I disagree with him and the fear of contracting HIV from contact with someone who has same-sex attraction and has likely participated in homosexual acts. Disagreement, belief of immorality, or other aversions to homosexuality are not phobias, yet that is the politically labeling that is used to deceive and to villainize.
I'm not afraid of people who have same-sex attraction (I don't like the term "homosexual," either because it implies that it is an immutable class, which it is not). I prefer terms like "people with same-sex attraction," or like the CDC refers to men-having-sex-with-men when it speaks about HIV/AIDS. If you're going to define terms, stop using them to deceive.
I personally know people who have changed their sexual orientation: formerly attracted to men and now only attracted to women, and formerly attracted to women and now only to men. And, of course, everyone is capable of controlling their behavior. I speak from experience when I tell you that people can be taught to participate in homosexual acts and such acts can lead to a change in sexual orientation. And as long as that is the case, especially with children, I will be speaking out against all attempts to normalize, promote, and/or propagandize homosexual behavior in our society - call me an "anti-homosexual behaviorist" a "pro-heterosexual reorientationist" and a "person against promoting sexual confusion in impressionable youth and adults."
I'm not suggesting that those with same-sex attraction should be dehumanized; on the contrary, I think we should help them as we help others with conditions that make their lives difficult: we should be seeking prevention and a cure. There's nothing harder in life than being different from everyone else, no matter how much society accepts your difference.
I'd just like to know what else Michael thinks the Church is wrong about.
It doesn't matter what I call myself or whether the attraction is mutable or fixed. There is a way I get treated in churches, and I get treated this way simply on the basis of perceived gender identity and the sexual behavior people THINK I have - even if in some kind of alternate universe I were in fact completely straight or under a vow of celibacy, people would think what they think on the basis of my mannerisms and physical appearance alone, and there wouldn't be a thing I could do about it.
If I go into a random Episcopal church where no one has ever seen me before (most Episcopal churches are fairly LBGT-friendly), people are friendly, outgoing, nice to me. If I go into a Catholic church where no one has ever seen me before, people don't want to shake my hand, trying to start a conversation is like banging my head into a brick wall, and I feel palpable reserve and mistrust. This is apart from any other factor, such as theological views or whatever, because these are cold visits. The differences in social reaction seem immediate and based on appearance alone. It's not fair - I'm not sleeping around and for all they know I could be straight. I want to be Catholic. I do everything I can to be Catholic. But it's hard not to let this total social barrier get to you.
I suppose the issues of naming and whether or not one's social orientation is mutable or fixed do matter, but if things are so bad in your church that non-sexually active people who violate gender expectations or trigger somebody's "gaydar" don't feel welcome because they're assumed to be gay and the mere existence of gays in the congregation is that politicized, it's a serious pastoral problem. No one wants to face that. I hate to think about what would happen if I came in with a Platonic (no sex) same-sex lover on my shoulder someday, like John Henry Newman and Ambrose St. John. I suppose I'd be discouraged from receiving communion - even with no sex involved. And if you have to hide even Platonic relationships in order to fit in, who wants to fit in?
I'm still trying to nudge my way into the Catholic community. I go to one of the Episcopal churches fairly regularly and keep trying in the local Catholic parishes, hoping that at some point something changes and I can cut loose of the Anglicans. But I just don't feel welcome.
Is that a Beatles song?
That type really get up my nose too :)
Nice article Fr Martin.
Our Church is heaving under the weight of ideology and there is not enough of a simple human recognition as PJ Johnson sought in the churches.
I think that the Jesuits are better equipped to deal with such issues than other orders because of the great emphasis on discernment.
Jesuits will make many mistakes and they do but they are trained to reflect and this can lead to a lot of non-answers.
Non-answers can be an act of patience, a refusal to pigeonhole .
When we are told that homosexuals are out for an "ideology of evil" this can have a big effect on catholic thinking.We no longer look at others as fellow humans but simply as the "Other".
The ghetto mentality that was sexed up for 27 years is leaving the Church slowly , Pope Benedict realizes that we are not playing Cops n Robbers. People are people and the Church has to meet them as she finds them.
Vincent O Keefe said that when Fr Arrupe went to meet with the last Pope he would ask him to come with him as he got "spaghetti legs" ,when they met. Do saints strike the fear of God into other saints?
I admire the many gay catholics who stay with the Church , let those who meet them with dogma and not charity have a damascan moment.
In line with what David Smith said about breaking down barriers and getting to know what it is about, I think it might be a good idea to simply look at the Last Supper or else read De Profundis by Wilde (bad theology tho!) or else watch The Gospel according to St Matthew by Pasolini.
I know because I, for 55 years, lived my life the way he described his life, except I did not have the wisdom to go to the Episcopal Church to receive that basic human acceptance. The life of a faithful gay Catholic living his life the way the Catholic church teaches is one of extreme forced social isolation.
In everyday life within a Catholic parish almost nothing is ever said about homosexuality. In that silence within the everyday church, parishioners are left to continue to persist in the negative stereotypes that society has always perpetuated. The silence just reinforces those beliefs and the reaction of fellow parishioners is to keep people like PJ* in what would be the equivalent of a mental leper colony.
It is wrong that PJ is treated the way he is treated in the Church especially when it is based solely on people’s perceptions about him. If the Catholic Church acted with the love and caring that it professes, PJ should be able to proclaim his sexual orientation form the pulpit and be received by his fellow parishioners with open arms. Isn’t that what Jesus would do in the same situation? Until all the PJ’s in the pews FEEL that they could proclaim their sexual orientation to their fellow parishioners and not risk rejection, the Church will continue to drive blameless faithful Catholics like PJ away, and that is shameful.
*I used the terms “exactly as he described himself” and “people like PJ” to refer to how he described himself in the first 2 paragraphs. This is to avoid the semantic arguments that this thread has mostly been about. It is the description of a faithful, devout Catholic who lives the way the Catholic church says he should and is therefore blameless.
I have some friends and relatives who are homosexual or lesbian and they are wonderful, loving, respectful and loving people. We don't know why 10% of the world's population is homosexual or lesbian. We don't know how this fits into God's plan. We can only follow Jesus's teachings of love and inclusion. It is difficult to assert that homosexuals and lesbians must practice celibacy for their entire lives in order to be welcomed to God's table. While many Catholics cannot imagine a committed and faithful communion between homosexual or lesbian couples, this is not reason for hateful discourse.
Read "the sexual peson" by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler for a good scholarly book that is one of many works based on biblical, philosophical, theologican and anthropological theory. This and many other books and articles move the conversation forward with the objective of finding and understanding the truth. At one time, sex had only one licit position, sex during menstruation was forbidden, sex during pregnacy was a mortal sin and sex was only for procreation. All of these were once the common opinion of theologians and Church Hierarchy that have since been abandoned. Is our teaching on homosexuality more complete, more universal and more concious than these obsolete principles?
Interesting. So if that's "nuance," what would be an unnuanced position? Just plain out-and-out lynching?
And if this is how you express "love," I'd rather you bring on the hate. People who love me listen to me, try to learn from my experiences and don't accuse me of evil intent. Because in my experience, it's always my enemies who make false accusations against me.
There is no trend against free speech. There have always been, however, trends in what is considered acceptable speech. Crazy people are always free to say whatever they want. Even the ACLU defended Nazis marching in Skokie. That's a given. People liek Sarah Palin who today claim there is some movement against free speech are really complaining that there are any social consequences for saying whatever stupid crap they want to spew. Free speech means taking responsibility if you say something unpopular, not whining because people disagree with you.
But we restrict speech socially in certain arenas. What I may say when I hit my finger with a nail I cannot say on television. Racists realize on some level that racism is not socially acceptable, as we saw so often during the last election: "I'm not a racist, but I'll never vote for a Negro."
Today it is no longer socially acceptable in mainstream society for people to slander gays and lesbians with the old accusations )pedophiles, effeminate, subversive, etc.). But yet we sill have people who sense it is not socially acceptable, so they say "I actually love gays and lesbians, but I don't like the way they are trying to destroy society and my religion and deny freedom of religion and freedom of speech and all that just because I want to say how they are evil."
It's disingenuous, unacceptable and reasonable people see through it.
Because they lost a government grant?
Why Brett, you sound like those liberals who claim health care is a human right and the government should guarantee it. If health care is a strictly private thing on the terms of the market, why should adoption be different? No one was making Rockford stop providing adoption services. Couldn't they just adapt to market forces? Perhaps adopt a for-profit model of adoption?
I hope you find a welcoming community, PJ.
I did not mean ghetto in numerical terms.
Catholics were 20% of the world population at one stage and held onto a self-image of the persecuted good.
It feeds into our ego's to think of oursleves in such terms.
Many gays are guilty of the same,even when they have the entire mainstream media rooting for them they take on the role of the soon-to-be crushed minority. I agree with Brett that the main thrust of the article is of a straw man variety but also think we have some catching up to do with gay catholics and that is more important now.
Don Quixote is gone and in his place is Sancho , and not a minute too soon in my opinion.
The Church is dying a lot faster than most people realize and the re-birth will not come from mass gatherings of people fawning over one man ,especially when that man is not Jesus Christ.
http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/Ratzinger.htm
This is an anti-dote to such thinking.It is really beautiful when read in depth and shows that humility will be the transformation of the Church.
PJ Johnson,
"I have found the place ,where memberships a smiling face"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iab3JQG7-E&feature=related
:)
Given that gay marriage is a top priority for the LGBT community right now, and that the Catholic Church unequivocally opposed gay marriage, the word difficult is probably an understatement, especially when many gays and lesbians consider opposition to gay marriage pure bigotry and downright hatred.
I do believe that Christians should never use the word fag or gay in the sense of bad (though a huge number of our young people do so use that word). I do believe that we should oppose efforts to stereotype gays and lesbians or to harrass them. On the other hand, given the huge, irreconcilable gulf in beliefs, it is difficult for me to see what sort of relationship the Catholic Church can have with them, honestly. What should we do?
Central to the body language of Jesus is LOVE. But not an “anything goes” kind of love but a love based on commandments as Jesus put it, “If you love me keep my commandments.” Of course, being “one with the Father” Jesus was talking inclusively about the Sinai Document called the “Ten Commandments,” not just his words.
Reflecting on his teaching on sexuality for example to the point where, according to Jesus, if one even looks at a woman lustfully, one has already committed adultery of the heart with her, what about the attempt to legitimize every form of human sexuality imaginable? And for that matter the ultimate “sanctification” of any human activity barring none. Therein resides a problem for me trying to give objective truth previously unacceptable stretch!
Respectfully, I’m talking about LGBT lifestyles and all kinds of “experimating” if I may invent a word. How does one square any of them with the body language of Jesus, with objective truth? If that’s possible it seems to say that ultimately, I can do anything I please, that there are no restrictions, simply live and let live. In other words I decided what’s right and wrong - indeed NOTHING is “wrong” everything is O.K if you like it! Is this what Jesus meant when he said, “If you love me keep my commandments?” It seems to me we’re all called upon to live sexually restricted lives, whether gay, straight, or any variation in-between, this certainly so if we are Believers. We’re all called to “offer it up” as the good Sisters used to say and rightly so. If this is wrong, then gosh, I’m ’way off in my understanding of objective truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - in a word, Catholic/Christian/Scriptural morality!
I would suggest printing it out and taking it away to a quite place.I spent a full day reading it and re-reading it.
The actual message is very nuanced and challenging.
http://www.univforum.org/pdf/579_Ratzinger_The_contemplation_of_beauty_1102_ENG.pdf
Here above is his best essay in my opinion. It tackles the meaning of beauty and contrasts beauty in the Greek and Christian sense.
Enjoy!!!!!
The thing is that people fall in love.
There's a wonderful CELIBATE Lesbian, Catholic convert writer Eve Tushnet (eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/) who is anti gay marriage but once expressed that if there was a valid argument for gay marriage, it would be "it gives gay people a home". But then even something that pure - even if it's celibate - would probably be frowned upon.
''Homophobia'' has never been listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It is rather a disrespectful, pejorative, non-scientific, non-medical word invented to attack and incite violence against all who disagree with Aberrosexualism or biologically aberrant sexual behavior.
“Homophobe” is a hate-loaded slur used by Aberrosexualist groups to unjustly discriminate, stigmatize, demean, hurt and offend everyone who disagrees with their extremist ideology and irrational agenda. This slur is as despicable as any other ethnic, racial or sexist slur. It has no place in civil, respectable public discourse and it be understood that is never acceptable. Never!
Use of the pejorative term “homophobia” to denigrate the universal rejection of Aberrosexualism is a verbal act of aggression against humanity and violates our basic right to have language used in a truthful, objective, precise and depoliticized manner.
It's easy for those desensitized by bigotry and intolerance to shrug “homophobe” off as just a word, and dismiss everyone that gets upset over it as too sensitive. Interestingly, few would make the same argument with the n-word. That's because we recognize what a loaded term it is, bound up in centuries of painful history and very real violence.
Using the "h" slur and making derogatory comments against those who disagree with Aberrosexualism or biologically aberrant sexual conduct, isn't much different. Both are the kind of thing that tells us more about the person using them than the people he's uttering them about. It makes him look like a bigot, and it makes him look ignorant.