Despite the efforts of some to claim that Catholic teaching allows for the possibility of capital punishment, anyone who has taken the time to read the Church’s position on this will quickly learn that capital punishment — in all practical instances — goes against the Church’s call to proclaim a “gospel of life” and is forbidden. (See below.)

Why is it, then, that the four Supreme Court Justices who seem to have no problem with States wanting to expand the use of state-imposed executions are all Catholic? In the 5-4 decision reaffirming current U.S. law that allows the State to take a human life only when the individual being executed has also taken a life, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined Chief Justice Roberts in dissenting from the majority.

One wonders why these jurists — whose “Catholicity” is often made note of — are not called to task by those prelates who have no problem witholding the Eucharist from politicians with equally questionable commitment to the Gospel of Life.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 2267) states: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'”

Through their National Office for Evanglization, the Catholic bishops of Australia recently launced a national advertising campaign inviting those who have drifted away from the Church to come back. Part of the campagin includes these words: “The Church is God’s family and, like any family, has its differences. Sometimes people are hurt by other family members. We ask your forgiveness if you have been hurt in some way through the Church.”

The bishops are to be applauded for taking this step to reach out to those who have been hurt by the Church, seeking the forgiveness that is necessary to repair damaged relationships. But this is only a step, and seeking forgiveness is only one part of the process of reconciliation, as any 2nd grade Catholic preparing for his/her first confession can tell you. Other critical elements of the reconciliation process — be that sacramental, interpersonal, or social reconciliation — require that the sins be named, repentance be sincere, and a firm “purpose of amendment” be embraced.

As in the United States, I have no doubt that there are scores of Australian gay and lesbian Catholics who have drifted away from the Church because the message they have heard from the “official” Church is not the Good News of the Gospel, but rather a message telling them they are “disordered,” “sinful,” and not worthy of the respect that full human dignity demands. If such Catholics are to return, what welcome will they receive? Will the bishops and clergy of the Church in Australia engage in the dialogue that true reconciliation requires, or will they expect these faithful and spiritually hungry people simply to come back, sit down, and be quiet? Will the bishops’ hearts and minds be open at least to listening to the stories of gay and lesbian catholics, stories that bespeak a God Who is not a cookie-cutter Creator, but whose Hands have lovingly formed each and every human person in unique and diverse fashion? Will they be willing at least to consider that such diversity is reflected not only in “race, language, and way of life,” but also in the divine gift of sexual orientation?

I am thankful that the bishops of Australia have taken this first step. I pray they may have the faith and courage to take the next step, too.

Tenth Sunday of Ordinary Time – June 7/8, 2008
Dignity/NoVA & Dignity/Washington

Studying a language other than our first or native language certainly has its rewards, but it also has its challenges and potential pitfalls. One such pitfall that any student of another language quickly learns is that there are many words and phrases in one language that don’t translate perfectly into the other language. My Spanish isn’t all that good, but I do remember learning the concept of one pitfall that involves what linguists call “false cognates” – words in one language which look like and sound like a word in another language, but which actually have a totally different meaning. For example, the Spanish word, “embarazada” doesn’t mean “embarrassed” as it sounds to our English ear; it means pregnant.

Another pitfall in languages is a bit more nuanced. This is when one word in a given language has no real equivalent in another language. The word’s original meaning might be so broad and nuanced and multi-faceted, that there’s really no satisfactory equivalent in the other language. This is actually what I encountered earlier this week when I began to reflect on the scripture readings that we have before us for our liturgy tonight. When we look at those scriptures, it’s pretty clear that our focus and attention is being drawn to a phrase which we hear Jesus repeat in the Gospel from Matthew. After calling the tax collector Matthew to be one of his disciples, and then dining with Matthew, other tax collectors and others who would be considered outcasts or socially unacceptable people, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees to “Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” Jesus is here quoting what we heard in our first reading when Hosea, presenting the words of Yahweh being spoken to the unfaithful Israelites, states, “For it is love that I desire, not sacrifice.” So … if we take Jesus’ challenge at face value … what IS the meaning of these words: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

The “not sacrifice” part makes sense to me and is something that probably most of us are faithful to. After all, I suspect not many of us have burning altars in our back yards on which we offer up a pair of turtle doves or a young ram taken from our flocks. So the part about avoiding sacrifice or “burning holocausts” is not too difficult to put into practice.

But the “mercy” part was a bit more problematic for me. I had more trouble with this because of the way we define and use the word “mercy” in contemporary English. In our contemporary usage, “mercy” usually means something like “leniency” or not imposing as harsh a penalty as might be justified. We think of, for example …

• The Judge who is asked to “show mercy” before imposing sentence on the convicted criminal; or
• Perhaps a powerhouse sports team “shows mercy” on a weaker opponent by not defeating them as resoundingly as they could.

When understood this way, I don’t often find myself in situations where I can show mercy. Mercy is usually a one-way street; it’s something that one party – the dominant, active, “in control” party – is able to demonstrate to the other, less powerful party. If this is what Jesus and Hosea and Yahweh had in mind, then I didn’t see much application to my own life. It turns out, however, that this is not what they had in mind. As it turns out, “mercy” isn’t really the best translation of the original Hebrew word. That Hebrew word – hesed – is one of those very rich, very nuanced, very multi-faceted words that don’t lend themselves to easy or literal translation. I’m no Hebrew scholar, but in Hebrew the word is “hesed” is a simple word with complex meanings. Unlike “mercy” – which is suggestive of a very one-sided relationship – hesed can’t really be understood outside of the context of a reciprocal relationship, a relationship based on mutuality, reciprocity, give-and-take.

We see this, in fact, in the translation from Hosea … the translation we have uses the word “love” … but in other translations this same word, “hesed,” is translated as covenant love, loving kindness, steadfast love, loyal love, devotion, commitment, reliability or covenant loyalty. All of these words describe the relationship that God wishes to have with us, God’s People … and the type or relationship God wishes us to have with one another.
And so with this understanding of “hesed” as covenantal loyalty that is focused on a reciprocal relationship…. What does it mean for us … as individuals and as a community, when we hear God saying: “I desire not sacrifice – not mere outward signs of religious practice – but I desire covenantal loyalty”???

For one thing, being in this type of loyal, covenant relationship reminds us that we are part of something bigger than ourselves:

1. The presence of our national president and executive director here with us this evening remind us that we are not just this intimate community of NoVA or Washington, … but that we are connected to our brothers and sisters in the Dignity community around the country.
2. In our Eucharistic prayer when we speak the name of the pope and the local bishop, as well as leaders of other communities the world over, it reminds us that we are part of a Church community that reaches the corners of the earth—even if, and perhaps especially if, those same Church leaders are “uncomfortable” with our presence.
3. When we have a visible presence in events such as Gay Pride, it reminds us that we are called to be actively engaged in the world around us, being faithful and proud of who we are as God’s LGBT Catholic children.

When I was having difficulty earlier this week grasping these scriptures, I went where most of us go these days when we’re trying to figure something out … Google! If you Google the phrase, “Mercy, not Sacrifice,” you’ll get, 21,700 search results. The absolute number one, first result in that long list links to a posting on a Web site that describes itself as: “A Web Magazine for Christian Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender People.” In closing, I’d like to read what’s posted there as a reflection on these words from Hosea and Jesus – “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

“The Pharisees taught themselves that serving God was about performing rituals, sacrificing burnt offerings and keeping traditions. Jesus was saying that the Pharisees’ judgment of the tax collectors, sinners …ordinary people…was wrong.

‘Today is no different than back then. Many religious Christians and churches of all denominations have decided that being gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender is a sin and that we are, in effect, “sinners.” But Jesus is telling them that it is a SIN to view ANYONE with contempt and that the reign of God is about mercy, compassion and love for ALL God’s people. It is NOT about living a perfect life of sacrifice, but about people coming together and learning to love and accept one another other.” (http://epistle.us/articles/mercy.html)

Homily for the Fifth Sunday of Easter (April 19/20, 2008)
Dignity/NoVA and Dignity/Washington

Last week, in anticipation of the visit to the US of Pope Benedict XVI, our presider and homilist, Fr. Joe spoke to us very passionately about the voice that he – and, by extension, each one of us – has a right to claim as a child of God created fundamentally good, in the image of the divine. Not yet knowing what the forthcoming visit of the Pope would bring to the Church here in the US, not knowing what the visit might mean for us here in one of the two local Churches on the Papal itinerary, and not yet knowing what the Pope’s visit might mean for us as gay and lesbian Catholics, Joe lifted us up with his words that were rooted in faith, in confidence, and in hope. Despite the efforts of too many Church leaders in our own country and around the world to say that our voices and the voices of our experience as GLBT people have no place in conversations within the Church, Joe powerfully reminded us that the vision of what it means “to be church, to be God’s people” cannot be limited by those who have been called to a particular church office, or who hold a particular church ministry. Rather, each and every one of us – baptized as we are into the saving death and resurrection of Jesus Christ – has both the right and the responsibility to be continually formed by the Word of God, to be nourished by the Eucharistic presence of Christ, to exercise our ministry of the baptized as part of that “royal priesthood, a holy nation,” and to live out our faith as full members of the Catholic Christian community.

As the week unfolded, I suspect that many of us listened and watched the coverage with more than just passing interest as we got to know this man, Benedict XVI, more and more over these past several days. Not only was I interested in watching how the media covered this visit, but I also wanted to hear Benedict’s own words and read the texts of the Pope’s various homilies, commentaries and statements as he met with the bishops, with Catholic educators, with clergy and religious, or with representative at the United Nations.

The reason I wanted to be so attentive to the words of Benedict the XVI – as well as one of the reasons it was so good for us to hear Joe’s words in anticipation of his visit – was to see if there might be any difference between the words of Benedict XVI and the words of Joseph Ratzinger. As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the words of Joseph Ratzinger – especially words spoken about God’s gay and lesbian children (and it was almost always “about,” rarely “to” and never “with”!) – were often so harsh. It was Joseph Ratzinger, after all, who spoke of homosexuality as having a tendency toward an “intrinsic moral evil” and that this inclination of the homosexual person is an “objective disorder.” It was Joseph Ratzinger who said that this “inclination” is “essentially self-indulgent,” and that committed gay unions are “pseudo” unions, and that the laws in societies which recognize civil unions or gay marriage are “gravely unjust” and that they should be opposed at every level. And, it was Joseph Ratzinger who said that men and women who raise children within the context of a same-sex relationship – no matter how loving or stable or committed that relationship might be – do “violence” to these children. Because we as gay and lesbian Catholics have been all-too familiar with these less-than-hopeful, less-than-helpful words from the past, I know that I at least was hoping and praying to catch a glimpse of something different during this current visit.

As the week went on, we may not have seen or heard an epiphany of something dramatically different about the Church’s understanding of the lived experience of faithful gay and lesbian people, but there were, to be sure, many good things that the Pope said.

• He spoke repeatedly about a fundamental element of the Catholic intellectual perspective, namely the unity of faith and reason and how these ways of knowing are in complementary service to the unity of the Truth.
• He spoke about academic freedom, and that in virtue of this freedom, educators, professors and researchers are “called to search for the truth wherever careful analysis of evidence leads.”
• He recognized the value of diversity and of diversity of thought, telling the religious and priests gathered in New York that we need “to open ourselves to points of view which may not necessarily conform to our own ideas or assumptions. Thus we can value the perspectives of others, be they younger or older than ourselves, and ultimately hear ‘what the Spirit is saying’ to us and to the Church (cf. Rev 2:7).”
• He even spoke of the human limitations that all of us are subject to, recognizing that the “splendor of the Church” is sometimes “obscured by the sins and weaknesses of her members,” and even stating publicly that our own bishops often badly handled the painful situations in which minors were sexually and spiritually abused by clergy.

More important than anything he said, however, is the significance of one thing he did. I have no doubt that what will be remembered as the defining event of this trip was Benedict’s private meeting with victims of clergy sexual abuse after the public Mass here in Washington. These men and women – all from my own home archdiocese of Boston – had the opportunity to speak with the Pope and to receive from him directly and personally his own “mea culpa” on behalf of the entire Church.

As he stated repeatedly, the main theme of Benedict’s trip to the US was, “Christ our Hope.” In his statement before leaving Rome earlier this week, Benedict said that, “With the various groups I shall meet, my intention is to share our Lord’s word of life. In Christ is our hope! Christ is the foundation of our hope for peace, for justice, and for the freedom that flows from God’s law fulfilled in His commandment to love one another”.

With that in mind, let me share with you the words of the Czech writer, dramatist, and also the first President of the Czech Republic. On the topic of “hope,” Vaclev Havel wrote the following:

“Hope is an orientation of the spirit,
an orientation of the heart.
It is not the conviction that something
will turn out well,
but the certainty that something makes sense,
regardless of how it turns out.”

As GLBT Catholics, we still don’t know “how things will turn out” under this or any future papacy. But we do know in the depths of our spirits and in the recesses of our hearts that we ARE God’s beloved children; we do know that we ARE sons and daughters of a God who has created us in the image of the divine. We do know that we ARE sisters and brothers of Jesus who not only strengthens us on this our earthly pilgrimage, but who has gone before us and even now is preparing an eternal dwelling place for his faithful disciples. As people of faith and hope, there is nothing that makes more sense to us than this. Let us, therefore, truly embrace the words of Jesus, words that we hear him speak to his disciples during the “farewell discourse” of today’s reading from John’s Gospel. “Do not let your hearts be troubled… have faith in me… for I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

Just one more example of the moral and ethical bankruptcy of George W. Bush as a person and a president.

This paragraph says it all:

“When the OMB’s Susan E. Dudley urged the EPA to consider the effects of cutting ozone further on ‘economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,’ the EPA’s Marcus Peacock responded in a March 7 memo: ‘EPA is not aware of any information that ozone has beneficial effects on economic values or on personal comfort and well being.'”

A new and comprehensive report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life provides sobering information for leaders of U.S. religious communities. In particular, there is much in the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (2008) that U.S. Catholic bishops should take heed of. But if they read only one point, it’s this:

“While those Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion have seen the greatest growth in numbers as a result of changes in affiliation, Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic.”

Then, the bishops should do what any smart, intelligent leaders do: Ask those most likely to know what explains this exodus and what should be done about it.

See the full report online.

I am not a huge HGTV fan, although someone that I spend a lot of time with is. And so I’m familiar, as I’m sure many of you are, with the types of shows that HGTV produces and broadcasts. You probably know many of the shows on that network have a similar premise or structure. Shows like “Designed to Sell” and “Color Correction” and “Desperate Spaces” and many others … these all start out with a home or a part of a home that is in need of significant help. Even those of us who didn’t get a very strong “sense of style” in our genes can tell that the places selected for the program are in great need. And so, throughout the course of the next thirty minutes … we see what was outwardly drab, dull or even ugly become updated, modernized, vibrant, visually appealing and sometimes even beautiful.

These types of programs … are really about transformation, of being changed and transformed from what they previously were into something quite different. In a similar way, today we have Matthew’s version of a gospel story which is commonly referred to as “The Transfiguration” – based on the word metamorphothe – from which we get the word “metamorphosis.” Just as we heard last week about the Temptations of Jesus – a story we hear on the First Sunday of Lent every year – this story of the Transfiguration is one that we hear every year on this, the Second Sunday of Lent.

This passage from Matthew comes a little more than halfway through Matthew’s Gospel. The disciples and followers of Jesus have been getting to know who he is more and more. They have heard him preach – especially with his wonderful parables that teach about God and the reign of God. They have been witness to an amazing power in him as he has performed miracles … including wonderful healings of the sick and others in great need. And in the passage just before this story of the Transfiguration, Matthew tells us about the first time that Jesus speaks of his death. This first “passion prediction” has Jesus telling his disciples that he will go Jerusalem, that he will suffer at the hands of the religious leaders, be tortured, and be put to death … but that on the third day be raised. Peter protests at this prediction … and Jesus sternly rebukes him, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as humans do.” And then Jesus says to all of them … all who would be his disciples… that if they want to be a part of him and his work, “…you must deny your very self, take up your cross and follow me!”

And so this is the context in which Matthew sets the story we just heard. It’s now six days later and Jesus takes 3 of his closest disciples – including Peter whom he had so recently called Satan! – to the top of a high mountain. The fact that they are going up a high mountain is a clue to Matthew’s readers and to us 20 centuries later that something unusual is about to happen. Not only in the Judaeo-Christian heritage, but in the traditions of other peoples and religions as well, the “mountain” is very meaningful – at the very least, it is symbolically where the Divine and the Human meet – where Heaven touches Earth — and where Revelation takes place.

And so here, on top of this mountain that Matthew does not name, Peter, James and John see that – all of a sudden – Jesus is “transfigured before them.” Jesus face shines like the sun, his clothes are as white as light … and they see that he is not alone. Rather, he is standing with and conversing with two great figures from Jewish history — Moses and Elijah! Both Moses and Elijah had their own “mountain top experiences.” Symbolically speaking, each of these great figures represents different and complementary strands of Jewish life. It was on a mountain that Moses encountered the divine and returned with the Ten Commandments … and so Moses, the “Law Giver,” represents the institutional part of Jewish life that is devoted to the structuring of society and obeying the rule of God’s law. Elijah ….the one who climbed Mt. Horeb and experienced the Divine Presence not in the drama of an earthquake or great wind or dramatic fire … but rather in the stillness of a quiet, almost imperceptible breeze … Elijah represents the great tradition of the prophets, those men and women who – usually against their own will – faithfully followed God’s Call in speaking “Truth to Power,” challenging individual leaders, or practices, or even the entire community of their day when these same leaders or practices or communities were straying from the path of walking humbly with God.

And then, as if to rebuke Peter once again who starts talking about building tents to stay there … they hear a voice, the voice of the One whom Jesus elsewhere calls “Abba.” This voice makes a simple declaration and a simple command: Do you want to know who Jesus is? “This is my beloved son.” Do you want to know how you should relate to or respond to him? “Listen to him.” “This is my beloved son with whom I am well-pleased. Listen to him.” These words – “beloved son” – these are the very same words that are used when Abraham – about whom we read in the first reading – is called upon to sacrifice his son Isaac … “since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son.” With this heavenly, cosmic declaration, the vision ends … and the frightened disciples are left to be comforted by Jesus who tells them not to be afraid.

We call this story “The Transfiguration” … and by that, we mean the transfiguration of Jesus. But in reality, what the story depicts is not so much a transfiguration or transformation or metamorphosis of Jesus; in fact, what happens with Jesus is essentially a more complete Revelation of his identity, of who he is and already was. Jesus is revealed in as clear a way as possible as one who is the “fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.” The REAL Transfiguration and Transformation – unlike the external transformation we see on an HGTV program – occurs within the hearts of these three disciples – Peter, James and John. This story of the transfiguration is as much about what happens to them as it is about Jesus. What happens to them is that they come to believe even more deeply that this One whom they have been following is more than just a do-gooder, more than just another prophet or someone shaking up the status quo – this One is the Real Deal – Jesus is the very presence of the Divine in the world.

And so what does this mean for us? It means, in part, that you and I ARE “Peter, James and John.” We, too, have been given the gift of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, of knowing who Jesus is, of what lies ahead, and most importantly … of seeing a glimpse of what lies beyond the pain of Good Friday and the “hardships” of discipleship. And although we might be able to see with the eyes of faith some glimpse of what the future holds … we cannot escape the painful realities of the present. It is sometimes hard to be faithful to our communal Lenten challenge to “Be Open” to the voice of God who calls us to Listen to Jesus and be sources of compassion, peace, and truth in our world that is so very noisy and filled with violence and war, death and destruction; where the mighty and powerful seem always to have the upper hand over the vulnerable, weak, and the poor. And that’s the world out there. What are the hardships that you and I are called to bear in the concrete circumstances of our own personal and individual lives, perhaps hardships that no one else is even aware of? Are we struggling with a relationship that might not be all that we hoped it would be? A job we’re not happy with? Am I or someone I love facing illness or health challenges, not knowing what the outcome might be? As individuals and as a community – we are called to bear these hardships for the sake of the Gospel. We are challenged during this Lenten season with our practices of Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving – to “Be Open” to whatever ways in which our faith asks us to be Jesus’ beloved disciples who “bear our share of hardship for the Gospel with the strength that comes from God.”

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good.” – Jimmy Carter (December, 10, 2002; Nobel Lecture after receiving the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, Norway)

Fortunate Families has begun an education series entitled, “Let’s Talk About Homosexuality.” The eight week series may be found under Education Programs on their Web site. A presentation on a new topic in the series will be posted weekly. Although I have not yet had the chance to read this first week’s presentation, I am encouraged that there are groups like this that are doing concrete things to encourage diaglogue and conversation.

Perhaps the parents and other family members of gay and lesbian Catholics are in the ones in the best position to facilitate such a conversation. Popes and bishops often seem so entrenched in merely repeating the old “teachings” that do nothing but drive away faithful gay men and women; and gay Catholics often feel so very hurt and disillusioned by how they’ve been treated, they walk away from the closed Church door thinking, “things will never change, so why bother?!”

Perhaps gay people need to call upon our parents, sisters, brothers, and friends more so than we have in the past to be not only our quiet supporters who “love us as individuals,” but also our advocates in small ways and large.

The end of one calendar year and the beginning of another is always a time for reflection. For Christians, this comes during the middle of the Christmas Season (despite the fact that retailers and buisness page editors perpetuate the myth that Christmas is over on December 26). During this season, we celebrate the fundamental Christian belief that God became “one like us in all things but sin.” In and through Jesus of Nazareth, God the Creator knows even more intimately the heart, mind and soul of the human person.

Earlier this year, a wonderful organization called Fortunate Families posted responses they received from Catholic bishops around the country who replied to a letter asking the bishops to be in dialogue with gay and lesbian Catholics in their dioceses. Take a moment to read the response of “Bishop A” and thirteen other bishops who were gracious enough to reply. While some of these episcopal replies are less than hoped for, Fortunate Families should be applauded for keepeing the conversation alive. It’s my prayer that this conversation will continue in the New Year and beyond.