Modern Heroes 2: John McNeill

As I have explored a range of books dealing with issues of faith and sexual orientation, one feature has constantly struck me: the astonishing number of books, each a landmark of the field, which have referred to John McNeill and “The Church and the Homosexual” as having been a landmark in their own journeys.

John Boswell, Daniel Helminiak, Gareth Moore OP, Elisabeth Stuart, and L William Countryman are a few of the seminal writers represented in my own book collection, that I can think of right off the top of my head, which make clear the important role of “The Church and the Homosexual” in creating, almost ex nihilo, gay theology as an entirely new and respectable  field of academic study.

John McNeill has earned numerous formal awards for his work: just last year, he was awarded the “bridge builder” award by New Ways Ministry. The closing words of his acceptance speech are notable for repeating a recurring theme in John;s work – that the obvious flaws and fallibility so visible in the Vatican’s stance on “homosexuals” is providing an extraordinary opportunity for the Church, by creating the conditions ripe for the Holy Spirit to step in and transform the church – what he has referred to elsewhere as a real “Kairos Moment”.

To bring this reflection to a close, I believe that we are witnessing an extraordinary transformation of the Church from a patriarchal, authoritative institution into a Church of the Holy Spirit, a democratic Church that recognizes the Holy Spirit dwelling within all its members and sees authority as coming from the ground up.

At his discourse at the last supper Jesus is reported in the gospel of John: “It is necessary that I should go away before the Spirit can come to you. If I go away I will send the Spirit to you. The Spirit will dwell in your hearts and lead you into all truth.” What was that necessity? Why could the Holy Spirit not come as long as Jesus was alive?

I believe that Jesus was expressing a basic law governing human growth into spiritual maturity. As humans, we must grow from dependence on external authority to dependence on an authority that dwells within us. To achieve that growth we need fallible authorities. If our parents had been infallible we could never develop into mature adults making our own decisions and taking responsibility for them.

Thank God that Church authorities have proved so fallible. The result has been a maturing of the people of God. This began when the Vatican fumbled the issue of birth control, forcing millions of Catholic to exercise their freedom of conscience, make their own decisions and take responsibility for them. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what the present Pope is against when he decries moral relativism. Speaking of our last Pope, Archbishop Weakland had this to say:

He (John Paul II) did not read the signs of the time, namely, the opening of Vatican II toward more participatory government on all levels of church life…Discerning the action of the Spirit in the whole Church was not on his agenda. This failure was probably the most important lost opportunity of the post-conciliar period (pp.407-408).

One of the greatest beneficiaries of the fallibility of church authorities has been the LGBT Catholic community. We came to realize early on that we could not accept and obey Church teaching on homosexuality without destroying ourselves physically, psychologically and spirituality. Consequently, as a matter of survival we had to take distance from Church teaching, develop our freedom of conscience and learn to hear what the Spirit of God is saying to us through our experience. The result has been that the LGBT community is leading the way to transform the Catholic Church into a Church of the Holy Spirit.

“The stone the builders rejected has become the corner stone! This is the Lord’s doing and it is amazing in our eyes.” THANK YOU!! New Ways Ministry for your many decades of heroic service to the Church and to the Catholic LGBT community Thank you, God, for all the special maturing graces you are pouring out on the people of God. Thank you especially for the special role you are calling the LGBT community to play in establishing the kingdom of God.

For the remarkable contribution that his first book made to the topic of gay theology, the response by the Vatican authorities was to order his silence. As a deeply committed Jesuit, he naturally complied, deeply though it hurt him to suspend what he could see was important work.  Instead, he turned to a new direction, training and then working as a psychotherapist. As he constantly reminds us though, the holy Spirit has a remarkable way of turning the most adverse circumstances to Her advantage.  Unable to remain silent any longer, he was eventually forced to leave the Jesuit order, and to forge a new life outside of his community. No longer young, this could not have been easy. Nevertheless, he made the adjustment, surviving the difficulties and insecurities “With Both feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air”.  No longer subject to Vatican censorship, he found he was able to publish with “Freedom, Glorious Freedom.”

John McNeill’s work as writer, theologian and psychotherapist have been an inspiration for over thirty years – an entire generation. When he started on his work developing the serious study of gay theology, he was virtually alone. Today, there is a publishing explosion of material drawing on his work.  It is scarcely possible to find a notable writer on the topic who has not been influenced, directly or indirectly by his work. “Sex as God Intended”, published in 2008, contained as a Festschrift a lengthy collection of article by a range of writers, each of whom has made a notable contribution of her/his own to the  field, describing the enormous debt that they owe to him.  One of these , by Mel White, is titled “You saved my life” – quite literally, in this instance, through his work as a psychotherapist treating severe, suicidal depression. I am quite certain that through his books, and those of his followers, there will be countless other gay men and lesbians who can also say in all honestly that his work has saved their lives, directly or indirectly.  Other contributors to this Festschrift, each a notable contibutor to the search for queer acceptance in church in her/his own right, were Toby Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Robert E Goss, Jim Mikulski, Mary Hunt, Sister Jeannine Gramick, Vincent Virom Coppolla, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Daniel Helminiak, John Stasio, Brendan Fay, and Rev Troy Perry.

Personally, I too owe a great deal of thanks to John McNeill. When I first started writing here at “Queering the Church“, I was deeply honoured to find that he was an early reader, and offered strong encouragement for my early, faltering efforts.  He remains a regular reader, and regularly posts comments in response to some of my posts. I am not nearly in the same league as the other writers who have paid tribute, and am touched that he should take the trouble to pay any attention.  That he does so, is continuing encouragement and inspiration.

Part of the point of the Catholic recognition of saints is to identify role models for us to emulate.  It is far too early to think in terms of formal “sanctity” (not least because John remains very much alive, and continues to make his contribution), but he is very much an important role model, whom we can all take very seriously indeed.  If not (yet) a saint, we should give serious attention to recognising him as a notable martyr.  “Martyrs” are those who give witness for the faith. Usually, we understand the term as bearing witness for the Church.  Sadly, for gay men and lesbians, we must also recognise the number of men and women over the centuries who have been martyred by the Church.  Under the Inquisition, this was usually quite literal, by burning at the stake, or other methods of execution, all unbelievably cruel.  In modern times, the German Nazis, taking their cue from the Church, also created thousands of gay and lesbian martyrs, marked by the pink and black triangles.

Nowadays, martyrdom by the church is no longer literal, but symbolic, involving a death which is not physical, but professional – by silencing those in disfavour, eliminating their possibility of teaching or writing and remaining in the priesthood. Like Sebastian the first martyr, John McNeill has come back from the near death of his first martyrdom to confront the Roman imperial class ensconced  in the Vatican, reprimanding them for their continuing failure to speak the truth in love, as Scripture commands (and as the CDF itself reminds us we should be doing.  The important difference  to the story of Stephen, is that having found freedom in his own  ” death experience”,  John McNeill  is no longer subject to Vatican censorship, and can no longer be martyred by them.

There is a further reason for taking John McNeill’s story seriouslya s a role model.  In his own speaking and writing, he is regularly open and generous in acknowledging and honouring the help and support he has received, emotionally and domestically, form his long term love and partner, Charles. We all need helpmates.  McNeill and others have pointed out that in the earliest Genesis creation story, that in chapter 2, the emphasis is not on the need to supply Adam with a woman, but with a companion. The Lord has blessed John with just such a companion. To modify the old saw, let us remember that behind every successful man – there is another man.

Deo gratias.

John McNeill’s Websites:

John McNeill’s Books:

The Church and the Homosexual

Freedom, Glorious Freedom

Both Feet Firmly Planted in mid-Air

Taking a Chance on God

Sex as God Intended

Gay Catholics: Mark Jordan’s 9.5 Theses.

In looking up some information about Mark D Jordan (one of my favourite writeers on gay Catholicism), I came across the following gem on the website of the University of Chicago Press, which I share with you now.

(It is also worth pointing out that the U of Chicago Press has an extraordinarily high number of important title on gay history in its list., as I have been discovering in my bibliographical investigations. Any bibliophiles, take note.)

No book by Mark D. Jordan will ever see a “Nihil Obstat” on its copyright page. In that spirit, Jordan nails his 9.5 Theses on our virtual door. “A thought-provoking and guaranteed-to-be-controversial analysis of a perpetually troubling issue within the Roman Catholic Church.”—Booklist “Here the reader will find knowledgeable and generally dispassionate observations melded with the sensitivity and insight that a gay man can bring to the table. If homosexuality is the guest that refuses to leave the table, Jordan has at least shed light on why that is and in the process made the whole issue, including a conflicted Catholic Church, a little more understandable.”—Larry B. Stammer, Los Angeles Times “What Jordan accomplishes is nothing less than brilliant, giving readers with open minds a better appreciation of the intrinsic homosexual fixation, as well as homoerotic imagination of the Roman Catholic church. His scholarship deserves serious consideration by faithful Catholics in America.”—Chuck Colbert, National Catholic Reporter “A brilliant and incisive work. . . . Some will find Jordan’s description of homosocial clerical culture distressingly familiar; others may find it tasteless, shocking, and sensationalist. But as Jordan insists, facts—and the rhetorical devices used to conceal them—need to be unmasked. Jordan’s book offers a clear, candid and courageous discussion of homosexuality in modern Catholicism.”—Nathan D. Mitchell, author of Cult and Controversy		9.5 Theses on Homosexuality in Modern Catholicismby Mark D. Jordan, author of The Silence of Sodom Thesis 1. The Roman Catholic church has long been both fiercely homophobic and intensely homoerotic.Thesis 2. Most official Catholic pronouncements about homosexuality are meant to prevent serious discussion of it. Any real change in the “magisterial” pronouncements would require not just revision of conclusions in moral theology, but renunciation of the methods of authoritative teaching. Thesis 3. Catholic denunciations of homosexuals are chiefly intended to produce silence around the topic of the male homosexuality that is within the church, especially in the priesthood and religious orders. Thesis 4. So long as the present regime of church power lasts, we will never have accurate estimates of the number of “gay priests.” Even if the regime disappeared tomorrow, we could not reconstruct a convincing history of priestly sodomy. These losses should not prevent us from understanding how important male-male desire has been in the development of the Catholic church. Thesis 5. The best way to understand contemporary clerical cultures in American Catholicism is by comparing them to life in America’s gay enclaves. Thesis 6. Procedures for excluding gay candidates from seminaries and religious orders have succeeded chiefly in helping anxious candidates build more ornate closets. Thesis 7. Contemporary quarrels over Catholic liturgy resemble clashes between competing forms of gay sensibility. Indeed, they are often those very same clashes in a different venue. Thesis 8. The exercise of power in the Catholic church enacts some of the unhappiest forms of suppressed desire between men. Thesis 9. While there are more and more communities in which to live as an honestly gay Catholic, there are still no words adequate for telling those lives. Thesis 9.5 (the other half being exhortation). The most Catholic way to begin speaking about homosexuality in the church would be a public liturgy of repentance. This liturgy would have to be something more than vague formulas addressed to God. It would require at least a confession of hidden desires—and a vow to undertake twenty centuries of charity as penance for the twenty centuries past, which saw much less.
Copyright notice: ©2000 by Mark D. Jordan. This text appears on the University of Chicago Press website by permission of the author. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that Mark D. Jordan and the University of Chicago Press are notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of Mark D. Jordan.

The Liturgy Queen

“Confessions of a Liturgy Queen” is another of those new blogs that I came across while following the useful information on the WordPress dashboard, identifying sites from which readers had followed links.  In this case though, I found it not from my dashboard, here, but at the Open Tabernacle.

Ross Lonergan describes himself in these words:

I am a resident of Vancouver, Canada. In 2006 I returned to the Catholic Church after 40 years of “lapse.” Since that time I have developed a passionate interest in many things Catholic, especially the priesthood, being gay and Catholic, and Vatican II. I am keen to learn more about the history of the Church and about theology, about Catholic writers of fiction and non-fiction and their works, about Judaism.

Ross and I clearly share a lot of interests, among them an exploration of theology and Church history, the nature of priesthood, and the obvious issues of being gay and Catholic. (I also like many of the books on his f”avourite fiction” list, notably “At Swim Two Boys”). He is clearly  thoughtful, keen to learn and share, and writes clearly of his findings. Ross began blogging in December 2009.  I hope he will continue a long time. Go across and have a look for yourself:. (These are some of his posts that caught my attention):

The Church as the People of God

The Church as the People of God, Part II

On Conscience

Hans Kung on Conscience

New Ways Ministry and “Authentic” Catholic teaching.

Cardinal George has “denounced” New Ways Ministry and its support for gay marriage, stating that  it “does not offer an authentic interpretation of catholic teaching” on sexuality. New Ways should be pleased.

From the New Ways Website, some history:

In 1976, Bishop Francis J. Mugavero of Brooklyn, New York, wrote a pastoral letter, “Sexuality: God’s Gift,” which was one of the first Roman Catholic statements to contain a compassionate and encouraging message to gay and lesbian people. Gay and lesbian people deserved to be treated equally in society and the Christian community, he noted, and then he addressed them directly, stating, “. . . we pledge our willingness. . . to try to find new ways to communicate the truth of Christ because we believe it will make you free.”

Sr Jeannine Gramick

That passage and that term, “new ways,” caught the attention and the hearts of a priest and nun team who were doing ministry with the gay and lesbian community. Father Robert Nugent, SDS, and Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, adopted that phrase for the title of the workshops they were giving in Washington, DC, to Catholic pastoral workers and others interested in gay and lesbian issues. These “New Ways Workshops” were sponsored by the Quixote Center, a Maryland-based Catholic social justice group. One year later, in 1977, these “New Ways Workshops” blossomed into a separate non-profit organization, New Ways Ministry, devoted to Catholic gay and lesbian concerns.

The Church itself has quoted the text “The Truth shall set you free”, in its document “Homosexualitatis Problema“.  The problem with that document, and with George’s position, lies in its assumption that Catholic teaching is itself necessarily the “truth” and “authentic” and worth taking seriously. On matters of sexuality and same sex relationships, it is not. It is riddled with misinformation, not supported by Scripture or the Church’s own history, and contradicts its own teaching on justice, on the primacy of conscience, and on openness and the inclusion of all in the Church.  It is not “authentic” to the Gospels and the Christian message – and is psychologically damaging. Bad psychology, as John McNeill never tires of reminding us, is bad theology.

The church claims that its teaching is rooted in Scripture, and specifically in the story of Sodom. However, this story has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. The other so-called “clobber texts” likewise have limited application to loving same sex relationships, being based on mistranslations or misinterpretations of the original texts, and none condemn all forms of homosexual activity.

The Church further claims that its defence of “traditional” marriage as a relationship freely entered into between one man and one woman is based on “natural law” and the church’s “constant tradition”.  Both claims are false. Marriage as we know it, and as defended by the Church’s official stance, is a modern invention. If it had anything to do with “natural law”, it would surely be the dominant, near universal form found across all human societies.  Instead, it is a from found very rarely. Far more common are social structures where marriages are either polygamous or arranged by families – or both, as among the Hebrews. There are also societies (both modern and historic) where the dominant form of sexual relationships are between men – with marriage reserved exclusively for child-rearing. Nor is the Church’s own tradition constant – it has in the past routinely provided liturgical blessing of same sex unions, and done so in Church; recommended celibacy even within marriage; and recognised as saints, or consecrated as bishops, men with well-known homoerotic relationships. The only thing “constant” in the church’s teaching is its continuous process of change.

New Ways Ministry recognizes that “authentic” Catholic teaching goes way beyond the narrow and distorted pronouncements on “homosexuality”, to the much broader and richer context of Catholic teaching as a whole, and to the heart of Christian faith – the Gospels.  In doing so, they offer a far more “authentic” version of Christianity and of Catholicism than such appallingly flawed documents as “Homosexualitatis Problema (The Problem of Homosexuality)”.

See my related posts:

Countering the Clobber Texts

The Church’s Changing Tradition

Excluded from God’s People

Other References:

John McNeill: The Church and the Homosexual

John McNeill: Sex as God Intended

Daniel Helminiak: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality

L William Countryman: Dirt Greed and Sex

John Boswell: Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality

John Boswell: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe

Robin Scroggs: The New Testament and Homosexuality

Martini Nissinen: Homoeroticism in the Biblical World

Gareth Moore OP: A Question of Truth

The “Homosexual Lifestyle”

A few years ago, I was privileged to be part of the team representing the Soho “gay Masses” in discussions with the diocese of Westminster, prior to the move from our then base in an Anglican church to a new home in a Catholic parish.  One of the opening observations made by Bishop Bernard Longley, for the diocese, listed the “concerns” of the diocese about the gay community: one of these was the “homosexual lifestyle”.  I’m sure you’re all familiar with that “lifestyle”- obsessed with sex, permanently high on drugs and alcohol, and unable to give a moment’s thought to anything more important than new additions to their wardrobe, or booking seats for the opera, ballet or musical.

The stereotype of course, is laughable- as are all stereotypes. It does not describe any of my friends, and probably not yours. But it is not a laughing matter:  this and similar  stereotypes lie at the heart of the animus displayed by the Vatican against gay men and lesbians. In “A Question of Truth”, his useful rebuttal of the CDF “Homosexualitatis Problema”, Gareth Moore shows how the Vatican argument is rooted the idea that “homosexuals” are somehow incapable of genuine Christian love, and that homosexual “activity” reduces still further that limited capacity for love. Yet, as Moore and many other writers have observed, and as is obvious to anybody with more than a passing acquaintance with real gay men,  they are conspicuously well-represented in the caring professions.

I was delighted today to come across David Nimmon’s  ”The Soul Beneath the Skin“, a book that tackles these false images head-on:  not by arguing with them, but by providing direct, empirical evidence of the reality.

Gay men are mindlessly hypersexual, unethically promiscuous and ceaselessly narcissistic or so the worst stereotypes would have it. Rather than refute these charges by painting a portrait of male homosexuals as just like heterosexuals (except for one small detail), Nimmons, president of New York’s Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center, radically reinterprets gay sexuality, intimate relationships and self-image. Using a wide range of scientific surveys, anthropological studies, philosophical inquiries and personal observation and anecdotes, Nimmons argues that gay male culture is arranged around highly ethical behaviors that value the needs and health of both the individual and the community. These values, he argues, are enacted through a wide range of sexual practices and unconventional couplings (from one-hour tricks to open long-term relationships), and are manifested in the community-building that has accompanied the AIDS epidemic, as well as the broad range of mentoring relationships between gay men. Noting that “gay relationships are distinct from heterosexual relationships in that they are frequently based on expectations of equality, reciprocity, and autonomy,” Nimmons also examines how gay men’s relationships with women could present a model for heterosexual men as well.

(Read more)

Natural Law, Natural Sex.

One of the arguments used by the CDF in “Homosexualitatis Problema” (it’s document condemning “homosexual acts”), and raised again by Pope Benedict in his urging the English and Scottish bishops to oppose the pending amendments to equality legislation, is that these relationships are somehow in conflict with “natural law”.

Reflecting on this claim led me to re-read some reputable scholars who have carefully analysed this argument. Among the rebuttals that I am familiar with, I came up against an argument and quotation in Fr Gareth Moore’s “A Question of Truth” which I have not previously seen presented in quite the same way. It is well known (but conveniently forgotten by the defenders of “traditional” one-man, one-woman marriage, that human societies today and in history, show as astonishing variety of forms of sexual relationship, so that the word “natural”, applied to sexual relationships, means very different things in different times and places.

What put a new spin on this for me, and gave me pause for thought, was Moore’s observation on the reasons for this: that sexual patterns, like speech and other human activities, are learned. Indeed, he points out, any human unfortunate enough to grow up in an exclusively “natural” environment, totally bereft of human company or training, would exhibit patterns of behaviour far removed from what we would normally describe as “natural” – because out understanding of “natural” does not in fact mean free from human training, but rather denotes shaped in the norms of a particular social system.

It is not surprising then, that to a young man growing up in ancient Rome, his “natural” sexual role would have been (f a citizen) to penetrate just about any person of lower status under his control – women, slaves, and even the freed men who may previously have been his slaves. To the Jews, “natural” law resulted in patriarchs with extended households of wives and concubines. Indeed, polygamous societies could justifiably point to several examples from the animal kingdom to show that such patterns were “natural”- but exactly the opposite conclusion could be drawn by societies based on polyandry (in which matriarchs take multiple husbands): bees and termites live in complex societies built around just a single fertile queen.

And for young adolescents in Melanesia, “natural” sex will be, self-evidently, homosexual – because that is what they will grow up accustomed to. In Melanesian societies, adolescent boys are introduced to sex very young. At initiation, they have sex with all the adult males in the group, and thereafter form a long term sexual relationship with an older male from within the family (usually a sister’s husband, or an uncle). Quoting from Greenberg (“The Construction of Homosexuality”), this is the description of the sexual progress of a young boy growing to maturity in one particular Melanesian group:

An Eturo boy’s career in homosexuality starts around age ten, when he acquires an older partner, ideally his sister’s husband or fiancé (so that brother and sister receive semen from the same man). The relationship continues until the boy develops a full beard in his early to mid-twenties. At this point, the now mature young man becomes the older partner of another prepubescent boy, ordinarily his wife or fiancee’s younger brother. This relationship continues until the older partner is about forty. His involvement then ends, except for initiation ceremonies, which include collective homosexual intercourse between the initiates and all the older men, or if he takes a second wife, with her younger brother. Because taboos on heterosexual intercourse are extensive, while there are none on homosexual relations, male sexual outlets are predominantly homosexual between the ages of ten and forty.

- from Greenberg, “The Construction of Homosexuality”, quoted by Gareth Moore OP in “A Question of Truth”.

Suddenly all became clear: of course Aquinas saw heterosexual relationships as “natural”. Over the thousand plus years of Christian history, the leaders of the Church, drawing on misinterpretations of scripture and of the stoic philosophers, gradually replaced the original patterns of what had been natural in the three societies that the early Christians were drawn from – and created a new model which in time came to be seen as the natural order.

Benedict Advises: Get Blogging

Also see James Martin’s take on this, at America

From Washington Post

Pope to priests: Go forth and blog

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI has a new commandment for priests struggling to get their message across: Go forth and blog.

The pope, whose own presence on the Web has heavily grown in recent years, urged priests on Saturday to use all multimedia tools at their disposal to preach the Gospel and engage in dialogue with people of other religions and cultures.

And just using e-mail or surfing the Web is often not enough: Priests should use cutting-edge technologies to express themselves and lead their communities, Benedict said in a message released by the Vatican.

“The spread of multimedia communications and its rich ‘menu of options’ might make us think it sufficient simply to be present on the Web,” but priests are “challenged to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources,” he said.

Monsignor Claudio Maria Celli, who heads the Vatican’s social communications office, said that Benedict’s words aimed to encourage reflection in the church on the positive uses of new media.

……..

“That doesn’t mean that (every priest) must open a blog or a Web site. It means that the church and the faithful must engage in this ministry in a digital world,” Celli told reporters. “At some point, a balance will be found.”

Fishing for Souls: 5th Sunday in Ordinary Time, 7th February.

Isaiah 6:1-8

Psalm 137: 1-5, 7-8

1 Corinthians 15: 1-11

Luke 15: 1-11

What does “apostle” mean to you?  For many people, there is an assumption that it ahs something to do with being of the elect, one of “the twelve”, or the inner circle.  But the word itself has nothing to do with this- and Scripture itself is not at all clear that there were just twelve apostles:  where the word is used, it refers in different contexts to different groups.  At times it is indeed used to refer to the twelve- at other times it is used interchangeably with “disciples”, to refer to a wider body of followers (and at least one woman, Junia, is described as an apostle).

The word itself simply means one who is sent – derived from “apostello” – I send.  Today’s readings from Isaiah and from Luke remind us that in this sense we are all apostles. Isaiah tells how, seeing himself as unworthy, as a wretch, he nevertheless heard the Lord asking “Whom shall I send?”, to which he answered (to his own surprise, I suspect), “Here I am, end me.” Simon, on the lake shore after the miracle of the fishing boats, is overwhelmed by his own unworthiness, and pleads with the Lord to be left alone in his sinfulness. But the Lord will have none of it, and assures him that henceforth, he will be a fisher of men.

"Fishers for Souls", Adriaen Pietersz. van de Venne (c. 1589, Delft – 1662, The Hague)

Now, being chosen does not mean that Isaiah and Simon were mistaken in their earlier self-assessments.  They believed they were wretched sinners – and so they were, just as we all are.

Children and Marriage Equality

The primary argument against gay marriage has always been that it somehow “harms marriage” and that children need two parents of opposite sex. (At least publicly. Often the really primary reason, as the prop 8 trial in California is showing, is often sheer animus and prejudice). The argument of course is entirely without foundation – the opponents of marriage equality have never yet been able to demonstrate quite how children are harmed, or to be back their claims with academic research., which has repeatedly shown just the opposite. As any parent knows, and as children themselves affirm, what matters is the quality of the parenting, not arbitrary demographic characteristics f the parents.  Not racial group, not social class, not gender or orientation – just love and the quality of care.  (My own daughter says “Gay parents? I recommend them”).

Now, yet another new study has shown he claim is entirely spurious.

Two moms are as good as a mom and a dad: study

Having two parents matters. Their gender doesn’t, according to a new study.

A pair of American sociologists spent five years sifting through all the available literature contrasting the outcomes for children raised in traditional families with those raised by a same-sex couple. Their conclusion: no substantive difference at all.

“The upshot of the study is something that should be common sense, but instead there is this enormous belief in the significance of gender. Bottom line: What matters is good parenting,” said NYU’s Judith Stacey. She and colleague Timothy Biblarz published the results of their investigation in the Journal of Marriage and Family on Friday.

(Read more at parentcentral.ca)

*****

Meanwhile, the New York Times carried a useful report showing how my daughter is not the only one one speaking up for gay parents. many young children have been giving public testimony in support of the legal and political battles that are driving the progress to marriage. This report is the first I have seen that offers any estimate of the number of children being raised by same sex couples: 250 000 of them, estimates the demographer Gary J. Gates. That’s a quarter million of kids whose interests need to be protected, and the academic research, as well as the children themselves, our saying loud and clear that their interests are best served by allowing their parents to marry.  Protect the children, promote marriage – by extending it to same gender couples.

Children Speak for Same-Sex Marriage

Excluded From God’s People

Question: Look carefully at this picture of assembled Catholic cardinals, and decide (carefully, now): Which of these, in terms of Pope Benedict’s own reasoning, are “excluded from God’s People”?

Answer: If you are to follow the line of reasoning of Pope Benedict himself, in his earlier incarnation as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the answer should be plain to see: all of them.

How so?

In the first Church document dedicated to the matter of homoerotic relationships, “Homosexualitatis Problema“, the “Problem (sic) of Homosexuality”, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) quotes two verses from Leviticus which appear to condemn homosexual relationships, and then leaps to the completely unsubstantiated assertion that, because these verses describe such actions as an “abomination”, the people so described are “excluded from the Kingdom of God.”

If we are to accept the reasoning as sound, we should be able to apply it equally to the other behaviours which are similarly described as “abominations“, and so discover who else are “excluded from the Kingdom of God.”

These verses include in their condemnation those well-known disreputable sinners as the eaters of shellfish and rabbits, those wearing clothing of mixed fibres, and (it pains me to say this), those who have shaved their beards. Now, the picture shown does not show a great deal of detail, but I fail to see a single beard among the assembled throng. To be consistent, on the basis of this argument we have only two options: either we must accept that the illustrious cardinals shown (and the overwhelming majority of all clergy) are likewise “excluded from God’s people “, or we must accept that the reasoning is flawed. Which is it?

“Homosexualitatis Problema” concludes with two wonderful verses from Scripture: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (Jn 8:32), and “Speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15), both stirring verses that I would endorse fully. What enrages me, is the deceitfulness, the utter dishonesty, of a document which purports to be about “Truth”, but instead bolsters its claims (for that is what they are: claims, not reasoned arguments) with a long series of palpable falsehoods.

I could accept in good faith a document that submitted ts claims and supported them with clear reasoning. This document does not. Instead, it provides us with an excellent example of what Dr Mark Jordan has described as the typical rhetorical style of the Church: to present statements as unquestionably true, without justification, and then to bludgeon us into submission by sheer force of repetition. These are examples of the statements made in exactly this way, without demonstration, that are demonstrably untrue:

In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God who behave in a homosexual fashion.

These verses from Leviticus are well known, and it is inexcusable that they should be so badly misrepresented. They do not condemn those “who behave in a homosexual fashion”, but a much narrower set of behaviors – men who lie with men “as with a woman”. It does not condemn women’s relationships, nor does it condemn other kinds of “homosexual behavior” – such as caressing, or home-making, or cooking, or mutual love and support, or dancing,or…… Just what is behavior “in a homosexual fashion“?

“There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there (in Genesis 19, of the story of Sodom) against homosexual relations”.

Note that this is not just a claim that the story is a condemnation of “homosexual relations”. It is much stronger, and says that “there can be no doubt“. In fact the opposite is true – there is indeed a great deal of doubt. Not only is there “doubt”, but even outright denial. Many reputable Biblical scholars now point out that there is in fact no condemnation of homosexual relations anywhere in Genesis 19. The story as told in Genesis does not in any way identify the infamous “sin of Sodom” – but it is identified elsewhere, and it is not “homosexuality”. (See “Countering the Clobber Texts” for more on the real sin of Sodom.)

The document goes on to claim that there is a “clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behavior. This is nonsense. Among over 30 000 verses in Scripture, there are only half a dozen which appear to criticize some homosexual behaviors and even these verses are debatable. (Over 300 verses carry admonitions against heterosexual behavior). there are also very many texts which support loving same gender relationships (see The Gospel’s Queer Values) – but these the CDF simply ignores.

The Church’s teaching today is “in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and her own constant tradition.”

The Vatican likes to repeat this phrase about a “constant tradition” (or “unchanging” tradition) on “homosexual relations” at regular intervals. In fact, there is no “constant” tradition, when you take a long view over history. There is indeed “organic continuity”, but it has changed substantially over the two millenia of history, just as teaching has changed on many other issues: on slavery, on usury, on women’s proper & expected subjection to the will of there husbands, on the sacramental nature of marriage, and the need for its solemnization in church (which was once required only for priests), on compulsory celibacy for priests, on the evils of democracy………..

On homosexuality, historians such as James Boswell, Mark Jordan and Alan Bray have shown just how much the teaching has evolved and changed over the centuries. I have listed some of this at Queering the Church, in my post “The Church’s Changing Tradition“.

The church’s perspective “finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences“

It does not. The natural sciences, like the human and social sciences, clearly show the opposite view. Zoologists have shown that homosexual behaviour occurs throughout the animal world. (See “God is Slightly Gay“). Physiologists have found some differences between the brains of people with homosexual and heterosexual orientations. The professional associations of the medical and psychiatric professions agree that homosexuality is not pathological or in any way “abnormal”. (Anthropology and social history show the same, but let us stick with natural sciences for now, as the Vatican does.) None of these natural sciences “support the Church’s perspective”, as the document fraudulently claims. But note the slippery rhetorical style: it does not claim that all science supports it – just that the “secure” findings of natural science do. In other words, those findings that do support Church teaching are “secure”, those that don’t can simply be dismissed as “insecure”, no matter what are the views of the scientific community as a whole.

“Homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfilment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God.”

This outrageous assertion is one that the CDF would no doubt like to believe, but there is no basis at all for accepting it - nor is any justification provided. On the other hand, there are two clear reasons for rejecting it, at least as applied to persons with a natural homoerotic orientation. First, if this is the way we have been made by the creator, how can its expression be “contrary to the creative wisdom of God”? God does not make mistakes. Does the CDF really believe we are called to somehow repair God’s mistakes? The truth here, as so often in this document, is precisely the opposite of the claim presented. The lessons from psychotherapy are clear: what is dangerous to mental health, and prevents human fulfilment and happiness, is the denial of one’s identity and personal truth, including one’s sexual identity. As John McNeill, the notable theologian and psychotherapist, endlessly reminds us in his books, bad psychology is bad theology.

These are the most obvious, clear falsehoods in the statement. There are others which are less extreme, but are also misleading.

St Paul, in 1 Cor 6:9 “proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God”;

This text does not list those “who behave in a homosexual fashion”. It lists rather, “malakoi” and “arsenekotoi“. Do you know what those are? No? Nor does anybody else. Accurate translation of these terms has puzzled Biblical scholars, because their meaning is unclear, but could be associated with idolatry, or the practice sometimes described (inaccurately) as “temple prostitution”. It most certainly does not refer to people who behave in a “homosexual fashion”, whatever that might mean.

1 Tim 10 “explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.”

Again, it does not. It “explicitly” names only “malakoi“, for which – see above.

There are numerous other nasty rhetorical tricks employed by Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict in this document, from the choice of language and false contrasts he sets up, for example, by contrasting “homosexual acts” with “conjugal relationships”. For balance, he should compare “conjugal acts”, with all their associations with a loving marriage, with loving homoerotic relationships. Of course he does not – he totally ignores all consideration of such loving same sex relationships, writing instead only of “homosexual” (historically, a medical term) acts and behaviour, of the “homosexual condition” , and of “disorder”.

The very title of the document is deceitful: it is headed “Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”, but in fact the formal title of the work is “Homosexualitatis Problema“, again simply resenting “homosexuality” as a “problem”. it is not. The only problem here is the Vatican’s total failure to understand , or even to attempt to understand, the problem.

Even the choice of Scriptural verses is telling: “Speak the Truth”, the document concludes. But what about listening? For all the claims of the modern church to be a “listening church”, there is not a shred of evidence in this document, or anywhere else, that the writers have made any attempt to listen to the people who know most about it – those who have learned from personal experience what it is to have a homoerotic orientation. Those churches which have in sincerity engaged in proper listening exercises have found that they have modified their previous views, and have recognized that their traditional views of Scripture on the subject were inadequate. There is a reason, though, why the Catholic Church refuses to do the same kind of listening, and it is one that affects us all- straight or gay.

Now, I would really prefer NOT to be dealing with issues of the church and sexual orientation here, at the Open Tabernacle. For that, I have my own site, “Queering the Church”, where I have been writing for the past year on this and related topics. However, it is clear from some of the observations in the comments threads to other posts, that this is a topic that cannot be simply ignored here. It is also important to note that the issue is of far wider significance and application than just to matters of sexual morality, still less exclusively homoerotic sexual morality. The real motive hiding behind the letter, which should be of concern to us all, has nothing to do with “pastoral care”, nor with “speaking the truth”. Rather, as the text of the letter itself makes clear, the real object is simply one of control. This is reflected in the document’s consistent denial of the validity of any conclusions that differ from its own: if science does not support it, it is not “secure”; if  scriptural exegesis is in conflict with the Magisterium, the Scripture scholars are in error. Nothing, it seems, is to be accepted unless it conforms with the writer’s own view of the Church “truth”. Dissent, debate, discussion are all simply ruled out. (Recall that the origin of the CDF was as the infamous Inquisition – which had thousands of alleged homosexuals executed, usually by burning, between the centuries after the high middle ages and the early Reformation. Unlike other atrocities in church history, this is one for which there has still been no official apology)

The lies, half truths and nasty rhetorical sleight of hand which the CDF has used in an attempt to stigmatize and condemn loving same sex relationships, under the pretence of pastoral care and speaking the truth, should be seen as much more than just a hostile act against a small minority. It is, rather,  just the most obvious symptom of a much wider malaise within the power establishment of the church, which threatens us all. This is of the utmost importance: the ecclesiastical obsession with control and power, and its frequent abuse at all levels, have been clearly shown to be one of the primary root causes behind the ongoing scandals of clerical sexual abuse – in Ireland, in the US, in Australia, and right around the world.