Here’s a thoughtful and insightful commentary on what so many of us have known for decades. What commentator Regina Schulte says quite respectfully about the posture of the bishops usurping the vital roles of others, especially the laity, in the collective process of discernment could also be described biblically: “Having eyes do you not see? Having ears do you not here?“
Category Archives: Commentaries
These People are Not Christians
These people are not Christians. That needs to be said simply and clearly. One of the things that those who oppose same-sex marriage often state is the truth that merely stating something doesn’t make it so. On this principle, they are correct; but it probably applies to them more than it does to anything they say. The mere fact that people like this call themselves Christian doesn’t make them followers of Jesus. The mere fact that they claim to be “bible-based” or “God fearing” doesn’t make them people of faith, people of love, people of charity. Jesus told us to love our enemies, to forgive those who persecute us. Their version of “Christianity” has little room for love or forgiveness, so filled is it with self-righteousness, intolerance, and even hatred of every modern-day Samaritan.
There’s a current country-music song getting some radio airtime by a singer named Josh Thompson. This mean-spirited guy has a song entitled, Way out Here. The song starts with these words:
“Our houses are protected
By the good Lord and a gun
And you might meet ’em both
If you show up here not welcome, son.”
How is it that in America — and in particular, the American South — people have so twisted and perverted Christianity that someone could even think of such lyrics, let alone record them and have that song well-received by so many? What about the message of Jesus of Nazareth do they not get? How can they possibly reconcile a perspective which threatens murder simply because someone is different or “not welcome,” with a supposed belief in “the good Lord”?
If these people are unable to see the face of Jesus in the stranger at their door, is it any wonder they can’t see the face of Jesus in the foreigner, the gay man, the lesbian, the illegal immigrant, the Jew, the Muslim, the black President, or even “the enemy”?
Vatican Condemns Proposed “Koran Burning Day”
It’s not often that some small, fringe pastor and his version of Christianity receive papal attention. Fortunately, the Vatican has stepped up to the plate and clearly condemned the planned “Koran Burning Day” being sponsored by Terry Moran and his Dove World Outreach Center (Gainesville, FL), which proudly proclaims the reasons for burning the sacred text of the world’s 1.5 billion followers of Islam.
Thoughts on a Rally
On Saturday (Aug. 28), I decided to ride my bike down to the Washington Mall to witness the “Restoring Honor” Rally organized by Glenn Beck. Other than having an unexplainable sense that “I didn’t belong” and that “I think these these folks and I see the world very differently,” it’s been hard for me to articulate what I thought and felt about being in the midst of this crowd who were drawn to what I sensed was largely an anti-Obama celebration. I realize that my sense of things was as much (if not more) an expression of my own biases than the real perspectives held by so many thousands of individuals, but that was my sense, nonetheless.
I didn’t hear many of the main speeches, but the bits and pieces I did hear were largely religious. I saw (on one of the large monitors) and heard bits of the remarks from Alveda King, niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the African American Outreach Director for the Roman Catholic group, Priests for Life. The part and prayer I heard dealt with abortion, but I heard no mention of or call to abolish the death penalty — one of the positions that Priests for Life espouses. I couldn’t help but wonder why?
Today’s Daily Meditation from Fr. Richard Rohr probably explains better than I can the underlying sense of division that seemed so palpable to me on Saturday. Would that it were not so!
“We thought that we overcame racism in the 60’s; we thought the church overcame triumphalism at Vatican II, and now forty years later we are right back into this regressive and dualistic thinking all over again. …. this judgmental thinking will continue to happen in every group, in every denomination if we see everything with a dualistic mind. No new emerging church will emerge very far.
The judgmental mind is not looking for truth; it is looking for control and righteousness. For some reason when we split and refuse to receive the moment as it is, we end creating and even reveling in those splits as our very identities. These are the culture wars and the identity politics we suffer from today. They will not get us very far spiritually, because they are largely ego-based.”
Gay Priests in Rome
Two thoughtful commentaries about the recent and troubling exposé in the Italian tabloid, Panorama.
- Brian Cones’, Gay priests giving gay priests a bad name (U.S. Catholic)
- David Gibson’s, Rome’s Gay Priest Scandal Makes Everyone Look Bad (Politics Daily).
Following the Good Shepherd’s Example
Fr. Joe Palacios, who teaches sociology at Georgetown University and whom many of us know, is quoted in an online article from Religion Dispatches about immigration reform proposals and the rights of same-sex couples.
In addition to referencing Fr. Joe’s advocacy work, the story also quotes Sr. Jeannine Grammick speaking very clearly about the opposition of US Bishops to “Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)—which would close a loophole that currently prevents US citizens in same-sex, committed relationships from sponsoring their undocumented partners for citizenship.” Says Grammick, “I find their arguments specious and I think their stand, personally I find it scandalous.”
What is most heartwarming, however, is the reference to two Catholic women who seem to have found a Catholic parish and pastor that welcome them and accept them — and their family — as they are.
Fr. Piers M. Lahey is the pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd Roman Catholic parish in Pacifica, California. Fr. Lahey lived up to the name of his parish when he went out on a limb and wrote a letter to U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein in supporting her efforts to seek legislation that would provide individual relief to one of his parishioners, Shirley Constantino Tan. Tan and her partner of 24 years are active members at Good Shepherd, but she was subject to deportation after her appeals for asylum were denied. Fr. Lahey wrote that Tan and partner Jaylynn Mercado are “wonderful Christian partners, parents, role models for their two boys, and, as Scripture says, ‘living stones’ helping to form and build up the Church, the Body of Christ, in today’s broken and violent world.”
God bless Fr. Lahey for following the example of the One True Shepherd. His example of supporting those entrusted to his pastoral care speaks volumes when viewed next to those who claim the title of “shepherd,” but whose actions seem less than shepherd-like.
Texas Republicans & “Birthright Citizenship”
I try my best not to use sweeping generalizations or to speak about huge groups of people as if they all held the same world view or acted in the same way. I cringe when I hear someone begin a sentence with, “All men are …” or “Women just…” or “Kids these days are…” The same is true when people start these generalizations not with a trait or characteristic over which we have no control (like our gender, our race, our age or nationality), but also when the “label” is of a more voluntary nature, such as one about our choice of religion, athletic interests, or political persuasion.
Today, however, I’m going to make an exception. Texas Republicans are nuts! Their 2010 Texas Republican Party Platform is xenophobic, homophobic, hate-filled, anti-intellectual, self-aggrandizing and just plain stupid. The HRC’s latest mailing highlights the anti-gay elements (see this version, with offending texts highlighted, starting on p. 6). Well beyond their condemnation of same-sex marriage and a desire to re-criminalize “sodomy” (whatever that is!), are positions from the ridiculous to silly to just plain mean. On the heels of stating that they “deplore all discrimination,” they immediately state that they also “deplore forced sensitivity training.” So, in their judgment, acts that actually cause harm to people — like discrimination in employment, education, housing, etc. — are assessed with the same moral judgment (i.e. “deplored”) as are attempts to provide education and training to help people understand what such discrimination might look like and how it can occur?
But beyond this sort of silliness, these Texas GOP folks also want to change the Constitution. However, they want to do so not by amending the Constitution, but simply by having the three branches of the federal government “clarify” it. And what, exactly, do they want “clarified”? Apparently the language of the 14th Amendment is not very clear to them, though perhaps it’s because their own command of the English language isn’t all that good, which is somewhat surprising, since the Platform also calls for the adoption of “American English as the official language of Texas and the United States”; but I digress. The Texans want Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to be understood as conferring “birthright citizenship” only on the children of current citizens. Here’s what the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, Section 1 says: “Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” [emphases added]. Now, I’m no lawyer or Constitutional scholar, but I do understand English, including American English. To me, that language is pretty clear: if you’re born here, you’re a citizen.
Texas GOPers want this “clarified.” And just so I don’t misrepresent, here’s their full platform plank:
“Birthright Citizenship – We call on the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of these United States to clarify Section 1 of the 14th amendment to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a citizen of the United States: with no exceptions.”
If their view of the Constitution were the prevailing one, how many of us would not be citizens because our parents or grandparents or great-grandparents were born to immigrants who had not yet become naturalized citizens? The vast majority of Americans are the descendants of immigrants — from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and every corner of the globe. This openness to the foreigner should be reflected not only in the welcoming symbolism of the Statue of Liberty, but in the very laws that govern our land. America is, always has been, and always should be, a country that sees immigrants not as threats, but as assets; not as people to be feared, but as new neighbors to be welcomed. For Texas Republicans, however, the light’s been turned off and the welcome mat removed.
Military Archbishop as Advocate for Injustice
The Catholic Archbishop for the Military Services, Timothy Broglio, yesterday joined the reactionary crowd of those seeking to retain the military’s discriminatory “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay men and women in the military. That policy flies in the face of common sense and basic human decency. In this season of First Communions, even a 7-year old knows that telling a lie is a bad thing; yet this is what the archbishop and his ilk would have thousands and thousands of well-qualified Americans do if they wish to serve their country in uniform. Instead of being honest and open about who they are as God created them, Broglio would have God’s gay and lesbian children remain in the darkened closet of lies and dishonesty.
Broglio’s outrageous comments demonstrate not only the intellectual emptiness of the position held by most current church leaders, but also raises the question of whether religiously affiliated chaplains who are unable to uphold and adhere to all military policies should continue to serve in the military as military officers — paid for with taxpayer dollars. Even when many military leaders, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, support moving away from this failed policy, Broglio continues to repeat the old canard that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will hurt “unit cohesion.”
Not only is Broglio’s position a slap in the face of gay men and women, it’s also insulting to America’s straight soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. Apparently the archbishop thinks they are not as mature as their international counterparts in countries like the UK and Israel, where gays and lesbians have served openly and successfully for years.
Not only is it time for “Dont ask, don’t tell” to be laid to rest, it’s also time for the archbishop to realize that military policies should reflect the non-discriminatory values that represent the best of what it means to be an American.
“To live is to change….”
“In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below, to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” [emphasis added]
— Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1843)
I’ve read this quotation from Newman before, but stumbled across it recently while reading some of the writings of another learned John, John T. Noonan, Jr.(A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching). Newman’s declaration seems particularly relevant today in discussions of same-sex marriage and whether or not society should enact laws that recognize and support such unions. One of the oft-heard arguments from those who oppose such recongition is rooted in the antithesis to Newman’s statement: the assertion that marriage has never changed, that such laws would ‘redefine marriage,’ and that marriage has always and everywhere been between one man and one woman. Despite the clear historical inaccuracy of the “one-man, one woman, always and everywhere” argument, the first claim is accurate: yes, same-sex marriage laws would re-define marriage, but that’s what societies across time, culture and geography have always done. Doing so now would only advance the cause of justice by providing societal support to loving unions between those whom God created gay or lesbian.
Giving Manhattan a Bad Name — The “Manhattan Declaration”
You may have heard that a group of Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox folks have signed a document that they’re calling the Manhattan Declaration. It’s subtitled, A Call of Christian Conscience, and it was released on November 20, 2009. (Here’s the Manhattan Declaration itself, and here’s a List of Religious Leaders Signatories). If you haven’t read it — you should.
For an overview of it, read the blog entry from National Catholic Reporter. As NCR reports, there were a number of Catholic bishops and archbishops — including Richard Malone of Portland, Maine and Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC — who lent their support to this historically inaccurate and deceit-filled statement.
Here are a few sections that demonstrate how low those who hate gay people will go, all the while cloaking their animus in the claims of being faithful to Christianity and our two thousand year tradition:
- “The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture.”
- “We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct.”
- “On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships?”
So much for a fair presentation of the issue, because all same-sex marriage efforts have also called for the legalization of “polyamorous” and “incestuous” relationships, right??
I have said before and I will continue to say: the effort to civilly recognize same-sex unions is not about marriage; it’s about seeing God’s gay and lesbian children as fully human and worthy of the dignity of all God’s children — including the right to form loving, stable, and generative relationships.
Image and Likeness 