Last week was certainly a study in contrasts between American Catholics and their spiritual leaders and teachers.
On Sunday, the spokesperson for the American Church, New York's affable Archbishop Timothy Dolan, pulled no punches while confidently defending the church's conservative positions on gay rights, women’s ordination, and priestly celibacy on 60 Minutes. He stated that gay people do not have any right to marriage, in the same way that a child does not have a right to marry his mother. Societies have always regulated sexual relations, he stated, and restricting marriage to a man and woman is but a useful and necessary continuation of this tradition.
Two days later, the Public Religion Research Institute released a study entitled, "Catholic Attitudes on Gay and Lesbian Issues: A Comprehensive Portrait from Recent Research." The findings show that not only do Catholic laity in America support gay rights generally, but do so at rates higher than any other Christian denomination and the American public as a whole. The research shows that 71% of Catholics support civil-marriage rights for same-sex couples, echoing results from a similar poll released the week prior. That poll, from ABC News and the Washington Post, finds a dramatic 23% increase in support for gay marriage among Catholics compared to the same poll five years ago.
In a Friday news release, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement entitled, "USCCB Urges HUD Not to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Among Protected Categories," which calls on the government agency "not to adopt a proposed regulation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories for which discrimination in HUD programs is prohibited."
Contrast that statement with findings from the PRRI poll about non-discrimination laws: almost three-quarters of US Catholics favor laws that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Dioceses continue to opt out of adoption programs rather than comply with local non-discrimination laws, notably in Massachusetts and Washington, DC. Church leaders in both regions said that they could not in good conscience place children in homes with same-sex parents, and as a result, they would halt the decades-old programs.
Not surprisingly, the PRRI poll found that 60% of American Catholics support the rights of gay couples to adopt children.
Gays serving openly in the military? You know the drill. The Archbishop for Military Services USA, Timothy Broglio, released a statement pleading with Congress not to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Sixty-three percent of Catholics in the US support open service.
It’s possible that some church leaders who support a more pastoral approach to these issues, and they do exist, stay quiet for fear of the consequences that could result in offering another view. What’s more likely, however, is that church leadership in the US is dominated by men with a very specific, unbending worldview, even as members of their flocks evolve on these contentious and important social issues.
What are lay Catholics to make of this ever-widening chasm between their beliefs and what they hear preached from their leaders?
Catholics in the US, especially young people, are increasingly accepting of gays and lesbians. The church is digging in its heels, unable to comprehend this sudden change in societal norms. Despite the campaigns, statements, and preaching, lay Catholics lead the nation in support of gay rights. At some point, something has to give. Will the church change its stance on homosexuality? Of course not. Catholicism is the largest denomination in the US, but it is still a tiny sliver of the global church, and attitudes elsewhere, especially in the growing hotspots of global Catholicism, remain rigidly conservative. But church leaders may want to reconsider where they focus their limited time, energy, and resources. The battle for gay rights in this nation increasingly looks like it will be won-eventually-by those who support them. The church can continue to be a vocal minority in opposition to change, alienating the many people who increasingly know, love, and accept gay family members and friends. Or, it can refocus its efforts to highlight the love of God that animates a nourishing, life-giving, freeing faith, and attempt to reach those who need this love most: those who feel marginalized by the church now.
@Tom M. - likewise, your response doesn't really address the issue. Of course, this kind of forum is not ideal for conducting lengthy theological discussions. But simply dismissing the views of those who disagree with you as "corrosive" and "muddled" and the distorted rationalizations of people wanting to be crowd-pleasers, without actually addressing directly the arguments behind their dissenting views, gets you nowhere.
(1) You assume supporting same-gender marriage somehow represents a fundamental disrespect for the sanctity of the institution. Not true. The things that many of us understand as the Biblical ideal for marriages - love, fidelity, committment, mutual support, responsible parenting of any children in their care, etc. hold for straight or same-gender relationships alike. In the case of Christian marriages consecrated before God, there are also the elements of faithfulness to God and the raising up of children in the faith. Again, true regardless of the orientations of the parents involved.
(2) You assume the Herod story is somehow relevant. In fact, what Herod did was have an adulterous relattionship/marriage with his sister-in-law. That hardly meshes with some of the sanctifying traits of marriage, like fidelity, faithfulness, and committment, I noted above. Many folks just wouldn't see the relevance of that relationship to what we're talking about here.
(3) You assume that the fact that the couples in relationship throughout the Bible are heterosexual somehow reflects negatively on the same-gender relationships being discussed. But their absence from scripture isn't really very telling, given that same-sex activities throughout the time the Bible was written often were conducted in the context of things like pagan rites, prostitution, rape, and pederasty. There is a legitimate question regarding the relevance of those few passages commonly used to condemn homosexuality.
(4) You assume that Church teachings and your own personal understanding of scripture are equivalent to the "clear, authentic, word of Christ in the Gospel." No offense, but that is one of the main points of disagreement here.
Again, not to start a debate, but just to point out that it's important to be aware of assumptions made when you argue your points.
In 2008 in California the repeal gay marriage ruling of the California Supreme Court was overwhelmingly approved by California voters. California was about the seventh state that had a state Supreme Court ruling approving gay marriages seiftly overturned by a puplic referendum. In fact in almost every stare wre gay marriage was on the ballot it was defeated. So this is noit just a Catholic thing in the United States.
The ban on gay marriage was approved in the same election that overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama. So there were plenty of liberals voting but still most voter chose to ban gay marraige in California. How does that work? California in any year is supposed to be atypically liberal . But it dtill bvoted to ban gay marriaqge in the year of liberal ascendency where the Presdiency , the house of Representative and the Senate all went to liberal Democrats. Soemthing very fundemantal must be going on.
And of course if oone isn't in the west - like three quarters of humanity - than the topic of homosexual marriages is not even discussed.
It might be better if Mr. O'Loughlin tell us just who actually supports gay marraige. Ort could this be one of those politically correct reactions where people say they are for gay marraige to the pollsters but in the privacy of the voting booth vote otherwise. What happens all the time in the notheast. Polls are off soemtimes by as musch as twenty or thirty percent. Just how reliable are Mr. O'Loughlin' polls? His pollsing data is not by actual voting results. How come?
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=15355
Non-practicing or "cultural" Catholics may support such things, but faithful Catholics (bu a wide margin) certainly do not.
(I like how the author tries to make it appear that the bishops are "out of touch" when, in reailty, it's his ideology that is the antithesis of most in the pews)
One more description of the devil. The devil uses civil authority, call it the State to war against the followers of Christ. It is surely not coincidental that Pontius Pilate, the civil governor of Palestine, condemned Jesus to a shameful death on the Cross. Over the centuries, the enemies of Christ have used the power of the State to undermine the moral teachings of the Savior. The legalized murder, under State authority, in most of the countries of the world, is surely the work of the devil. He uses State power. As I heard from a man just recently, “I have spent the last four years of my life in prison for praying the rosary before abortuaries.” As I said before, the State is the organized battalion which is being used by the devil to destroy the mystical body of Christ. 1
The report's authors go on to note that, even among the weekly group only 31% do not support any legal recognition of gay couples' relationships. Let's face it: we're a divided Church on this area with lots of grey area on this issue.
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
John 8:44
80% of "Catholics" could say they approve gay marriage and the Church will continue to stand by its' teaching of marriage between one man and one woman. If the Catholic church is the only institution sticking to the truth, I'll stand with the Church. You can not intellectualize truth because it is simple. I pray for those who consistently post on this blog to return into full communion with the Church and her beautiful teachings.
Second point. I constantly read pieces by U.S. Bishops that contain information about same-gender couples that directly contradicts the strong consensus of most mental-health professionals in this country, as well as the experience I and most people I know have had in knowing same-gender couples and their families on a personal basis. They also develop theological arguments from the fundamental assumption that scripture condemns homosexual relationships in all forms. There are a lot of faithful, Biblically-literate, intelligent Christians - lay, clergy, and theologians - who disagree with that based on contextual considerations. And disagreeing is fine. But grounding arguments in an assumption that is at the very heart of the disagreement, as the Bishops tend to do, does nothing to move the discussion forward. I get the strong impression that the Catholic hierarchy is completely avoiding, and maybe is completely blind to, the real issues responsible for the "widening gap" discussed in the article.
Arguably, all this survey demonstrates is that people support the legalization of anything that they perceive will have no impact on them. Or that people support the legalization of whatever they think everybody else supports.
What these polls fail to do is account for the potential ramifications of the choice presented and how that might affect the answers provided.
For example, consider what the poll might show if the question was asked, "Would you support gay marriage if legalizing it meant that homosexuality would be taught to children in public schools?" or "Would you support gay marriage if your child were more likely to choose a homosexual lifestyle as a result?" That gay marriage woud lead to teaching about homosexuality in public schools was one of the reasons that Prop8 was supported by CA voters.
Also ignored are the implications for society as a whole. Consider what the poll results on no-fault divorce would be if the question were asked, "Would you support no-fault divorce if it you knew that it would lead to a 40% out-of-wedlock birthrate?" Or, “Would you support no-fault divorce if it meant that your husband would be less willing to reconcile with you after he had an affair?”
Even a question like, "Do you think the Catholic Church should change its teaching on homosexuality and homosexual marriage" would be more enlightening than this inherently biased survey.
Think people; don't be fooled by these silly polls that are designed to sway opinion not report it.
Dolan has also stated that he would back something like civil unions (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVRpEfSKL0Q&feature=player_embedded), so that would seem to put Dolan within the 71%.
The Episcopal Church in America has a gay Bishop of New Hampshire and a lesbian Bishop of Los Angeles. Both Bishops openly and publically declared that they are sexually active in same-sex relationships. This public knowledge of their sexual activity did not prevent them from becoming Bishops of the Episcopal Church of America.
So saying other Bible literate Christians interprete the Bible differently and have diffderent theological teachings from than the Catholic Church is the point. The Cahtolic Church is not a liberal Protestant church nor should tit be. The Church does not need to "catch up" to the "advanced thinkers" of the Episcopal and other liberal Protestant churchs. Rather the Church needs to recognize how corrosive and effect on the Church the homosexual sub-culture has on the interpreting and teaching the Gospel. The clear Gospel is muddled and rationalized to favor the social needs of a sub-group of the their church. The point of the Catholic Church is not to be a crowd-pleaser but to teach the Gospel without human distortions of liberal Protestantism.
The CHurch has a solid Gospe and Biblical basis for not being in favor of homeosexual marriages as an institution or as a legal right.
Even a pedetrian knowledge of the Gospel knows the Church from the beginning actively defended marriage as a sacred relationship not to be tampered with by goverment or human social needs.
John the Baptist Christ cousin by birth and the person who Baptized Christ defended marriage.as one of the final acts of his life. King Herrod married his brother's wife and John the Baptist inspried as he was spoke out against this marriage. He was imprisoned for his speaking out against Herrod violation of the sacredness of marriage and was beheaded. From the very first while Christ was still alive the Church has defended marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman and to be taken very seriously by all including heads of state including King Herrod.
It is not possible to rationalize this fundemental human relationship even if ypu are a powerful and influencial head of state such as King Herrod or King Henry VII or a powerful political group. The Church needs to be true to the clear, authentic word of Christ in the Gospel above all human considerations and contests.
Some commenters want to make sure our bishops don't sound like liberal Protestants. Right now, they sound more like Southern Baptists, or even Mormons.
Army: court-martial Chaplains for "religious, conscience" objection to homosexuality.
3/24/2011 9:00:00 AM
By chaps@prayinJesusname.org -PrayinJesusName.org
The U.S. Army has officially threatened military chaplains they must either embrace the new openly homosexual military, resign from service, or face court-martial for their "religious, conscience" objections. The Pray In Jesus Name Project has obtained leaked copies (unintended for media disclosure) of a private briefing given to chaplains, threatening them with court-martial unless they compromise their Christian message.
Yep. They said THIS would NEVER happen. Dear Bishops: Where are you?????????
3/24/2011 9:00:00 AM
picklyman.wordpress.com/.../army-court-martial-chaplains-for-religious-conscience-objection-to-homosexuality
3/24/2011 9:00:00 AM
picklyman.wordpress.com/.../army-court-martial-chaplains-for-religious-conscience-objection-to-homosexuality
As I said before, the State is the organized battalion which is being used by the devil to destroy the mystical body of Christ.
But this quote above caught my eye:
"(4) You assume that Church teachings and your own personal understanding of scripture are equivalent to the "clear, authentic, word of Christ in the Gospel." No offense, but that is one of the main points of disagreement here."
No offense to the poster, but at least with respect to "Church teachings", it is not simply an "assumption" open for debate that they "are equivalent to the the clear, authentic, word of Christ in the Gospel"; that is Catholic doctrine! It is the Catholic understanding of revelation that BOTH the written Scription and the Tradition of the Church, which includes the consistent moral teachings of the Church, as articulated by the Magisterium, TOGETHER represent the word of God; there is a harmony between the two. To attempt to place either in tension or one above the other is a perversion of the Catholic understanding of revelation (see Dei Verbum from Vatican 2). Furthermore, it has certainly been the consistent teaching (albeit not technically infallibly taughty) that marriage is intended by God for one man and one woman. And I certainly don't think it is fair to suggest that the Bible contains passages supportive of same sex marriage. I think whatever side of the debate we are on, we need to be clear about Catholic teaching and work with it, or if you're opposed to it, to state so. But to suggest that this is just a matter of "assumption" is a tactic many find discomforting in this debate.
I'm guessing polls have been conducted on that question as well. My guess is that many of those people just don't buy the whole concept, much in the same way the concept has been rejected by Protestants. They remain devoted to the Holy Scriptures - as they understand them - and find many of the traditions and teachings and worship practices of the Catholic Church extremely meaningful spiritually. But they just aren't inclined to relinquish the right to interpret what the Bible says on major issues, and let others do it for them.
The Church can reiterate Church teachings on why Catholics should defer to the Magisterium, but I'm not sure that will convince many people. They can (and probably sometimes do) declare those that don't defer to be non-Catholics. But I'm not sure how American Catholicism thrives if deference to the Magisterium is an intrinsic part of being Catholic.
@ Andy Buechel: there is, of course, the notion of "development of doctrine". That is, as the particular teachings are applied to actual historical consequences, there is some creativity and change. This can be seen in each of the 3 things you mention: usury, slavery & homosexuality. In each instance, the Church didn't just change, it actually moved the culture around it. So while it is true that the Church didn't condemn slavery, it did teach that slaves were to be treated humanely and shuold actually be freed at a certain point. And, at least with respect to Paul's teaching on homosexuality, he was actually critiquing the Greek/Roman attitudes that encouraged male Roman citizens to engage in exploitative homosexual sex, so there was some counter-cultural critique in his teachings, not just homophobism.
Now, it seems to me that this is the contribution of the Church's teaching and why I think it premature to simply dismiss it as homophobic. The point of Dolan's allusions to incest is to say "You can, of course, apply certain attributes present in marriage to any human relationship. But the Church's point is that there is something intrinsically unqiue about the sexual relationship of a man and woman bound in marriage that is irreplacable." I just don't quite see the Church evolving very quickly on this point.
I can accept that argument with regard to slavery. That it shows a developing understanding of human nature and what is due to it, thus resulting in an ultimate prohibition of the practice. Usury does not seem like a development to me so much as a reversal, however. That which was once forbidden as grossly unnatural (money procreating) became perfectly legitimate. This is precisely the movement that those who advocate for a changed understanding of homosexuality are arguing for. I am as conviced as you are that, if change does happen, it will take a very long time. Yet the simple fact that the church condemns it now is not sufficient grounds to assume that it will always do so, any more so than one arguing in 500 AD on the solid grounds of the bible and tradition that usury was a mortal sin-anachronistically "intrinsically evil"-could accurately have foreseen the development on that course as well. Thus, I would also argue that the easy equation of ANY church teaching and the will of Christ is overly simplistic.
I believe the Church is at great risk for being labeled as out of touch and irrelevant by many of its own faithful members. And it is a shame because the Church can be a beacon of light for so many. The Church does many good works that are overshadowed by lunacy of some of its radical members to both the left and the right. Some are bishops and some are bloggers.
I guess we all just have to sit tight and find out how the story ends from the other side, because NONE of us has the TRUTH. It resides ONLY with God. And, yes, I know He gave out the keys, but I think he changed the locks a few times already! He may be loving, but He is not stupid!
OK, why not? But if this is the case (morals change with times) then what makes us think in 2011 that today's "progressive" ideals of sexuality won't be superceded by 2111 for something else? Do we in fact even believe that certain actions are always wrong, for everyone or not? And if not, then how can we even speak of 'rights' or morals rather than priviledges and the imposition of brute power?
If we do believe certain actions are always wrong.... how do we know we're not merely creatures of our time and will be 'wrong' within a generation or two? After all, if "the bible" and magisterium and 2,000 years of saints and mystics can be pooh poohed in favor of what's hip and cool now.... why should we be surprised when OUR opinions and proclivities are made illegal in 2021 by the new Caliphate or Chinese Hegemon?
Conclusion: be very careful when making the case against traditional morality by pooh poohing Bible, Magisterium and 'tradition' in favor of "modern times" because if you're right, you just gutted the intellectual premise of all objective moral norms and this WILL come back to haunt you and yours.
In that case, we agree on a great deal! I apologize if I was putting words in your mouth. Often in debates on this topic, it seems that homosexuality and the Trinity are placed on the same level of importance, as if one rejecting the teaching on the former necessarily rejects the latter.
And Juan. At no point did I "pooh-pooh" anything. You seem to think that those who disagree with the church on this matter clearly woke up one morning and decided that it would just be easier to go with the "culture at large". That these might be agonizing decisions, done with much fear and trembling, thought and prayer in order to both form and follow conscience does not seem to have entered your consideration. Perhaps it should.
I am convinced the church is wrong on the matter of homosexuality, and since I am equally convinced that the Spirit guides the church, I believe this teaching will one day change-though I will doubtless not be around to see it. I could very well be wrong. If I am, I have nothing to fall back on but the infinite mercy of God. And if I am right....I have nothing to fall back on then the infinite mercy of God. Phantom Caliphate or no phantom Caliphate.
Now, there is always the case of when one becomes convinced that the Church is wrong on a topic and how one deals with that. There is of course, for lack of a better word, the Protestant/Luther tactic of "here I take my stand". That tends to be more favorable in the 21st century particularly given the robust Liberal (I mean philosophical rather than narrowly political) tradition of individual rights. There is however another tradition of silently suffering, a more communitarian tradition, if you will, emergent in some forms of post-modern thought.
@Juan - As I've suggested, Catholics believe in the development of doctrine. So its not so much the teachings changings, as it is the application and understanding of those teachings that is different in each time and place. As you correctly point out, for example, slavery in the time of Paul vs. the 19th century. This is necessary because Christ's teaching is, as a consequence of teh Incarnation, known to us only partially and through human (fallible with exceptions) means. "Now we see as through a glass, darkly, but then face to face." I am not necessarily arguing that the Church change its teaching on same sex marriage, but given the raw statistical numbers, I think the Church will have to find some accomodations for its position and attempt to mediate its teachings in a variety of ways.
This way of viewing sin can be rather messy. It is a bit more subjective than literal interpretations made without consideration of context. It does invite consideration of science and social norms when discussing sin, because identifying the loving things to do can involve a good understanding of mental health and social norms. And it does evoke more debate and disagreement. But messiness is part of being a fellowship of fallible human beings, and I think this does get close to the heart of Christ's teachings. And really, I think it does result is a moral code that in most ways meshes just fine with the most conservative traditions and interpretations of scripture.
The options you lay out are of course possible, but there is (at least) a third: speaking what one believes to be the truth in hopes of reforming the whole. This approach could be associated with someone like Erasmus, who was neither forced from ther church nor sat in silence. In this approach, I think one can bring the tradition and that which is more important (say the Incarnation) to bear on that which is less important (say marriage and homosexuality). This is especially true when one believes that what is further down the spectrum actively contradicts or even annuls the much more important truths higher up. There are many queer scholars trying just this approach, among them Eugene Rogers, Graham Ward, James Alison, and Mark Jordan. These people bow neither to modern individualism nor to quietism. It strikes me as completely legitimate for a Catholic, with such exemplars as Sts. Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila. Reminding us of those voices that are authoritative in the tradition and which contradict modern views (for example, the contemporary teaching on gender would be utterly unrecognizable to St. Gregory of Nyssa, for whom gender could not be a fundamental part of our creation in the image and likeness of God, but was accidental to a more fundamental humanness).
For example recently the Wahington D.C. Archdioscese independent of government demands stopped offering adoption services because the church would be forced by D.C. law which does not allow religious exemption to provide adoption services to same-sex couples something that, as Cardinal Wurel said simply, the Church does not do.
All the rationalizations and theological intellecualizing does not influence the Church's religious autonomy, thank goodness. The Church remains autonomous of popular sentiment and faithful to the authentic Gospel message.
But it is clear an new era of religious oppression has open in the western world where religious doctrine not endorsed by secualr government is no longer being tolerated. This is not new or unexpected. The Church and other religions have have had terrible relations with governemnts throughout history. Today's threat to religious liberty is more of the same. Once again government wants all religions to conform to its political vision and demands. Often in history the state and its political leaders have seen themselves as all-wise and knowing rulers who only need to be obeyed.
Catholics need to be alert to this new threat to religious liberty from government by doing what they did very effectively in the past - organize politically. The Church is abused in Washington, D.C. only becasue they lare a political minority there. Lacking effective political representaion in an area makes Catholics easy to ignore. We do not need scholatic debate here we need effective political organization upholding the right of the Catholic Church to be Catholic. There are tens of millions of Cathjolics who are quite able to see that the Church remians autonomous of overreaching governments that fail to respect religious liberty.
This is the same group sponsoring the four conferences of faux-Catholic organizations discussing homosexuality and the Church.
This poll and the upcoming conferences are designed to divide; to cause termoil within the Church, and many people here are buying into it hook, line, and sinker. Michael O'Loughlin knows the game, that's why we see so many of these kinds of posts from him. If you post these kinds of things enough, people are going to start to believe it.
This poll is meaningless. Tom has it right: the Church needs to get its political game in order and, frankly, it needs to become more aggressive instead of allowing the homosexual lobby to pummel it in the public square. I'm sure there is much to be learned from the Evangelicals and Mormons.
However, it’s clear that I’ve been unclear so I will attempt to be clearer this time.
You wrote: “Over the years I have come to realize a couple of things - God is mystery, and by definition, human beings will never have "certainty" when it comes to understanding God.”
And
“There is no certainty and that is good…”
Well, it seems to me that these statements exhibit precisely the type of certainty I am pointing to when I say that all human beings look for certainty.
For example, what makes you certain that God is mystery? Or better, if this week you said that God is mystery but next week you said the opposite, would you seek to be certain each time you asserted the claim?
Thanks for the dialogue – I wish you peace on your journey.
If there is a widening gap in the Catholic Church about homosexuals and homosexuality, half the reason is because neither the priests nor CCD programs teach parishioners about the Church's position on this matter.
When the media and the homosexual lobby bombards the airwaves and blogosphere with pro-homosexual propaganda, attacks the Church as bigoted and hateful, and the parish priests remain silent (anyone care to hazard a guess maybe why?), of course many ignorant Catholics are going to be swayed.
THe need here is for Catholics themselves and not just the Catholic Bishops be engaged on the issue of same-sex marriage which is largely an issue of politcs and law.
The Church could indeed make more widely lnown its opposition to same-sex marrage and adoptions. But the heavy lifting on these issue must be from Catholics themselves. Catholics must be more engaged and visible on moral issue that impact on society. After all we do live in a democracy where the rules of society are decided by people at bollot boxes not by the sermons of Bishops. Bishops moral leadership is important but it is not enough to get the job done. Catholics themselves must not be passive sheep waiting for direction from above. Catholics need to make their voices known in public forum.
The relative silence on the issue of same-sex marraige has created a power vacuum which allows same-sex marraige activist almost unchallenged to shape and control the terms of this debate even to the point of declaring widespread public support within the Church. Catholics should know better and say so. This issue is very controversial and should not be uncontested by suggestable people who too uncritically and gullibly accept politcal propaganda of same-sex marriage activist inside and outside the Church.