Condoms May Be Used to Prevent AIDS, Pope Says

A press release by Reuters News yesterday at 1:10 PM EST announced that in a new book-length interview of Benedict XVI by Peter Seewald, that the Pontiff has approved the use of Condoms to prevent AIDS in special circumstances. The full interview will be published as, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times.

The book is to be published Tuesday 22 November and will be available on Amazon on 24 November, 2010

The Pope does not say that the use of condoms is moral, but that their use is able to be justified in limited circumstances, for example use by prostitutes to prevent AIDS, “as a first step toward moralization” but that they are, “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.” The Holy Father says that a focus on condoms is in danger of becoming, “… a sort of a drug that people administer to themselves” and loss of attention to sexuality as an expression of love.
I have not read the full text of the interview or even the entire section on condom use, but the official Vatican newspaper has already published significant excepts of the interview and given direct quotes from the Pope himself. What does all this mean? Why is the Pope’s statement making such a stir? It seems to me that:

1. The announcement itself signals a development in papal teaching about condom use. Previously the popes have taught that condom use could never, ever be justified. In that teaching, the assumption was made that condom use was essentially a method of “artificial birth control.” The development here relates to the realization that condoms can help prevent AIDS, a fatal disease.
2. It is interesting that the example of condom use was by prostitutes. (edit: Further investigation shows that the Pope was speaking of male prostitutes, contrary to what I posted yesterday). No mention was made of the use of condoms by a heterosexual married couple where one partner already has AIDS. This may well have been to avoid a facing off of procreative intercourse against against the fact that even when used to prevent AIDS, condoms are considered artificial birth control when used by a married couple.
3. we can rest assured that confessors and spiritual directors will seek “pastoral solutions” for a wide variety of cases. Although it has nothing to do with sex or disease, Once communion under two forms was allowed only in very limited cases, the custom has grown and is now tolerated or accepted as something to be available at all Masses with a congregation. The gay community that is still plagued by AIDS will believe and realize that it could be possible that the regular use condoms during gay sex might be moral, at least where there is a permanent, monogamous relationship.
4. It certainly will increase debate over the “new” allowance for use of condoms in special cases to prevent AIDS. There have been years of debate among Catholic moral theologians over whether the justification for the use of condoms can be based on the “principal of double-effect..” This argument never won the day with Church leaders. There was solid teaching, that all use of condoms was always immoral. The late Cardinal O’Connor said that suggesting condoms as a preventative of AIDS was “The Big Lie.” The Holy Father himself, on his trip to Africa said that condom use might help spread AIDS rather than prevent it.
5. The Popes “new” position can be seen as an instance in which Church leaders are actually taking into account the “historical circumstances” when dealing with personal moral issues. A historicist and personalist approach approach to moral decision-making has grown and been accepted in the area of “Social Ethics.” This may well be another step toward its application in individual / personal ethics (as was recently discussed at a worldwide meeting of 600 theologians in Trent Italy).
6. Some conservative / traditional / traditionalist theologians and similar-minded laity will be concerned that, “the Church is changing (not developing a deeper understanding); and in a way that appears to damage or destroy the assurance that the Church is always correct in its teachings. There might be a fear that this is just a hole in the dike leading to more secularism. On the other hand liberals or progressives, will be encouraged to press for continued developments in seeking to discern, “the signs of the times” and the search for greater insight into Truth through open dialog with other groups, not the least of whom will be gays, women, and immigrants.

It is no wonder that this apparently simple statement by the Holy Father may, in fact, be a blockbuster statement that will cause ripples through the whole Church and the whole world. But all depends on how this moral declaration is understood and implemented. Personally, I wonder if the the Vatican bureaucracy will desire or attempt to block this meaningful development and implementation of the Holy Fathers insight.
Please note that this post is subject to revision and/or editing once the entire text is available.
The interview / book is published by a conservative press and has been praised by Fr. Fessio, a very well-known conservative priest. Although much of the book will seem conservative to many, I urge all thinking Catholics to read and ponder what is in these pages. I can’t wait to read the entire book.

I encourage you, dear reader, to comment, raise questions, make suggestions or initiate a dialogue over the acceptability or unacceptability of the Pope’s position on condom use and the implications it raises for Church understanding of it’s relationship to this increasingly post-modern world.

Lutherans +/- Catholics +/- Anglicans Dialogue or Debate

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States (4.6 million members), just approved and welcomed into the clergy, actively gay ordained ministers who are in committed relationships.

Recently the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC.   members) began the process of corporate union with the Roman Catholic Church as a “Personal Prelature.” 

Recently The Episcopal Church in the U.S. established a Committee to prepare  liturgical rites and resources to officially bless same-sex couples in an established relationship.

Because all three of these issues relate to homosexuality it would be appropriate to approach my commentary from that perspective. However, I have another interest for this post.

With Vatican II, the Catholic Church opened outward to engage in dialogue with other Churches and Christian “ecclesial communities.” For forty years theological discussions and cooperative activities grew and we saw ourselves as a growing mosaic of Christian communities in Christ. But I wonder how the different denominations will react to the kinds of events listed above, especially in light of recent moves in the Catholic Church to emphasize Catholic identity, increase boundary markers, and a theological focus on apologetics.

The Catholic Church is a central player in all of these issues. But there are serious internal stresses and strains within the Catholic Church and these other Christian communities.

As long as the current strong, centralized, even authoritarian, institutional structure of the Catholic Church maintains power, there is little likelihood that theological dialogue and advances will be made, for example in sexual ethics, women’s ordination  or the nature and suitability persons for ministry. In my state there are two Catholic and one ELCA dioceses. For a number of years the three bishops have publically affirmed a “Lutheran-Catholic Covenant” pledging continued dialogue and sharing (even facilities and some cooperative religious education programs). What is to happen now between the Church and the ELCA with approval of ordination and acceptance of active gays into the ministry? Will the “Covenant” be put on the back burner, shelved, or, less likely, become a key mechanism to maintain close fraternal relationships? It remains to be seen.

Perhaps the greatest hope  for continued ecumenical dialogue and cooperation rests on what happens at the congregational and parish level. Last evening the pastor of our parish and I attended a meeting called by the pastor of a Lutheran church (ELCA) in the city. Attending and participating were pastors and laity from the Episcopal, Methodist, Catholic, and, of course, the Lutheran churches. A Presbyterian pastor was not able to attend this meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to create a cooperative “College for Adults”  to develop, “…disciples through Christian educational opportunities that are: spiritually relevant, intellectually stimulating, and personally challenging”  and which assist Christian people to: understand their faith, live out their faith, and share their faith with others.

If the increasingly fragile fraternal relationships (I use this word because the power and leadership in these communities are dominated by males)  between the leadership of the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations / ecclesial communities  disintegrates there may be dire irreparable damage done well beyond the confines of these religious groups. Globalization of the world is increasing as a result of the rapid growth on new electronic, communication, and transportation systems. We used to say, “It takes a village to raise a child.” The whole world is rapidly becoming “the village.” Will there be any kind of “global ethic"?” Will the great religions of the world have any role in creating a world to assist in holding together the mosaic of cultures that will continue to exist? Or will the “ethic” be the crassest form of utilitarian ethics? God forbid, that we fall into a dog-eat-dog world or the “war of all against all.”

If Christians can realize they have more in common than the differences between them, they will be part of re-creating a renewed world. If Christians can reaffirm that those of “other faith traditions,” also seek to discover the Truth, there can be dialogue and cooperative action,especially regarding respect for each other and building a more peaceful world. We do have a common humanity and  a common search for the Ultimate.  All of us know only partially now;  and now only through many different perspectives or “faiths” in our search for Truth and purpose in life.  We have the opportunity, today, to live together in a more harmonious world. We no longer can allow differences to destroy the deeper realities of who we are together.

But for us here and now, we must maintain hope and openness to “the other” who can become our brothers and sisters, free to worship God by whatever name we give God and called to serve the world. So maybe in my case one beginning step to to help make this “College for Adults” a success. 

Men and Catholics More Accepting of Gay/Lesbian Relationships

On May 25th the New York Times released a report on the moral acceptability of Gay/Lesbian Relations. Here are a few interesting results:

1. For the first time in Gallop Polling history a very slight majority (52%) of adult (18+ years old) Americans  support the moral acceptability of Gay/Lesbian Relations.
2. For the first time, the percentage of men (53%) who accept the idea that homosexual relations are moral is larger than the percentage of women (51%) who accept  the idea that homosexual relations are moral.
3. The percentage of the American population who accept gay/lesbian relations acceptable varies in different segments of the population. Most startling here is the finding that the percentage increase in support of the acceptability of homosexual relations among Catholics (+16%) is second only to that among younger men (18-49).

I will make only a few comments here.  Sixty-two percent of American Catholic adults find homosexual relations acceptable. This is higher than the Protestant (42%) rate of acceptance. In fact, the Protestant acceptance rate in 2010 (42%) is actually lower than Catholic rate in 2006 (46%).

The willingness to accept Gay relations as morally okay is noticeably less for Protestants (42%)  and Catholics (62%) than for Non-Christians (84%) and those claiming no religion at all (85%).

But the real startling news is the amount of change between 2006 and 2010. There was a 16%  change (from 46% to 62% ) among Catholics. This 16% increase is second only to the change (+20%) for men 18-49 years old.

One might create a stereotyped summary with some truth as to who supports the idea that Gay relations are acceptable. The "typical" supporter might just well be: A younger male who is a Catholic or not Christian. He is most likely an Independent or Democrat in terms of political party affiliation and  moderate  or liberal in political philosophy. Those among whom the change toward acceptance has been greatest are: younger men (+20%), Catholics (16%), political moderates (+14%), and Independent voters (+11%). Thus, movement in the direction of greater acceptance of homosexual relations as moral, is coming from those in the middle not from either extreme.

One question rises immediately. Why are Catholics as supportive as they are  of the view that homosexual relations are morally acceptable? There are many possible answers. I do do not know which answer, which combination of answers, or which additional answers might be reasonable.


If one takes into account only those Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday, the support for the moral acceptability Gay/Lesbian relations would be significantly lower. However, the mix of those who go to Mass every Sunday and those who go less often has been the same during each year. That Catholics are generally less faithful to the Gospel and to the "Church," is an ideological statement that will not stand up to the evidence. True, the Catholic Church has a loss rate higher than any other major Christian in the U.S. but these are not primarily "liberal / progressive" members.

There is another intriguing possibility. The Catholic worldview has some essential characteristics. It believes that the spiritual is mediated to us through persons and natural elements. It also has a both-and view of things. Even when Catholics see sin like "sexual sins" there is an ability to see them as arising out of human weakness. Since Vatican II there has been an emphasis on a personal-relational emphasis in moral theology. Even when "ordinary" Catholics do not read contemporary theology, they pick up current ideas in the Church, relate them to the findings of science and their gut feelings about what is "right."

It seems incumbent upon the Magisterium  to squarely face and openly listen to contemporary moral theologians and what the experience of real people indicates about the fundamentals of human sexuality.

Comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcomed.

UGANDA and Anti-homosexuality! Update # 4

Background. (See resources at end of this post):
The Anti-homosexuality bill introduced in the Ugandan Congress in October 2009 and which was roundly criticized by Western Nations in December, received a positive boost this month but this does not mean that all provisions set forth in the bill will be eliminated.

In mid January 2010, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni began to withdraw his support for the bill and appointed a cabinet committee to review and the bill.

Very recent events.
In Mid May, the committee  recommended that the bill be withdrawn !!!

It seems that the two  most odious and hate-filled sections will be eliminated: 1) the death penalty for homosexuals under a variety of circumstances,  and 2) that parents, teachers, clergy persons, etc. report to law enforcement any homosexuals they know about. This move is good. They are also the provisions that the Vatican and other religious groups, human rights groups and western governments strongly opposed.

However, the committee also recommended that other provisions in the bill be kept and inserted into existing sexuality laws. In fact, it specifically recommended that Clause 13 of the bill "was worthy of consideration." If Clause 13 is retained, it will forbid the "promotion of homosexuality." Even if revised, this clause might include negative sanctions against Sex education and AIDS awareness programs, advertising AIDS treatment programs, Condom and free needle distribution and other very important health-related programs, as well as discussions of homosexuality in newspapers and on TV and publicity or  advertisements by Gay clubs and other Gay-related entertainment or social and artistic events.

Possibilities for the near future.
All this means that the worst of the bill almost certainly will be eliminated and many other provisions of the bill are already in existing sexuality laws. The single most problematic issue is that related to "promoting homosexuality." There are still strong elements in the government who will fight to keep that provision. I suspect they could gather enough votes to keep clause 13 with the support of very larger numbers of Ugandans who are anti-homosexual. One admittedly unlikely but potential source of support might come from major religious groups who provide AIDS health care and other services to AIDS victims or sex education to youth an adults. I admit this is a slim hope.

The Future.
In a few weeks or months parliament will vote to kill the bill as it is and consider what to do with the remaining provisions. Of course an underlying difficulty for those who accept homosexual equality and freedom, are the extremely conservative attitudes and cultural norms in Uganda and much of Africa regarding patriarchy, family, and sex. The Roman Catholic Church and most "mainline' Protestant denominations will be caught in the middle, while Evangelical Christians and Muslims will support the conservative population.

Resources:
See the following articles on the recent events in Uganda:
"Uganda's Ugly Anti-Homosexuality Bill is Almost Dead"
"Is Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill Dead?"

See also my previous posts about Uganda:
UGANDA: Homosexuality and the Church
UGANDA UPDATE: Homosexuality and the Church
UGANDA UPDATE # 2
UGANDA UPDATE #3: Good news, sort of...

NOTE: The photograph in this post is a picture of Mahmud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, who were sentenced to public execution for being homosexuals in Iran. 18 July 2005. What happen to these young men may be avoided in Uganda.

Denver, Boston and Lesbian Mothers:- Diversity in the Church

On March 18th I reported under the heading of "Denver Mess,"what I re-cap below and I updated that post on 3/23/10, but just published it  today.

Denver Recap

In Denver, a pastor of a parish Catholic school refused admission next fall to two small girls because their mom's were lesbians. Both moms were physicians, have grown up Catholic, participated in the parish, had spoken to the school administrators about their situation and been given the go-ahead to enroll the older girl in the school last fall. The action of the pastor brought up a major controversy about what was the moral / ethical thing to do.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput intervened in the situation and supported the pastor's decision. Among the things I posted in my original post were two questions: 1) Where was compassion shown to the children? and 2) Could not a more equitable solution without publicity be arranged between the archdiocese, the parish pastor and the parents of the two little girls. Apparently no other arrangements have been made to settle this issue with more equity and compassion.


Enter Boston

The NCR reported today that things happened very differently in the Archdiocese of Boston. The incidents appear to be similar in that a parish pastor, Fr. James Rafferty ,at St Paul School in Hingham, MA reportedly denied admission to an eight-year-old Catholic boy because his parent was a lesbian.

However, the response from the Boston archdiocese, has been quite different than that in Denver. Mary Grass O'Neill, an offical of the Boston  Archdiocese said,

We believe that every parent who wishes to send their child to a Catholic school should have the opportunity to pursue that dream..... The archdiocese does not prohibit children of same sex parents from attending Catholic schools." .... We will work in the coming weeks to develop a policy to eliminate any misunderstandings in the future.

The superintendent of schools,  Mary Grass O'Neill, met with the pastor and school principal and the boy's parent. Arrangements were made that the Archdiocese would help arrange for her son to be enrolled in another Catholic school in the Archdiocese. According to O'Neill, the boy's parent. "...indicated that she would look forward to considering some other Catholic schools that would welcome her child for the next academic year."

The differing responses to these similar events does show that there  is some diversity between dioceses. I am sure that both bishops accept the basic teachings of the Church about same-sex unions [we cannot add "and behavior," because we don't know what does or does not happen in the the bedrooms of these parents]. And we must remember that each bishop governs and pastors by virtue of his own ordination and not merely as a delegate of the Holy Father.

The approach in Boston appears to be a wise pastoral decision. There seems to be a focus on the whole situation and attention to the people invloved in it. Perhaps something has been learned from the sex-abuse scandals in the diocese or from the leadership of Cardinal Sean O'Malley. But for whatever reason there is room for compassion and a public witness value to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Cynics, may say that the response in Boston was merely to avoid being in the lime-light for another controversy. But I say, present the evidence before you make that judgment.

The approach in Denver, at least to my way of thinking, appears to be a legal/theological decision; in other words upholding of the Law based on a particular understanding of theology. In this manualist understanding it is taken-for-granted that there are clear, uniform positions held by the Church [even those which are in no way defined as infallible] that are in every way and everywhere objectively true and universal. From this perspective there is little room for emphasis on "person" and "relationship" [with God, others and self] as a significant element in moral judgment. Thus it is more difficult in this theology to focus on victims [whether of sex abuse or of innocent children suffering for what their parents may have done].

The Church and the world are always changing. However, as Alvin Toffler so aptly put it in 1971 human beings no longer deal only with "culture shock," but now also with "future shock." In the midst of all this change, John XXII, Vatican Council II and Paul VI tried to ready the Church to modify its stance in many areas and to enter into dialogue with the contemporary world as well as to challenge it to hear the Gospel message spoken in words and theologies that they could understand.

Today there has been a return to a more defensive stance by much of the hierarchy, some theologians, ever larger numbers of the faithful [some of my earlier posts speak to some of these trends]. What does this have to do with Denver and lesbian mothers as well as those in Boston and all over the country?

For lesbians and other LGBT persons, progressive Catholics, many orders of sisters, those of our clergy formed in the spirit of Vatican II, and many others it may mean 40 years in the desert. Archbishop Chaput is one of the most articulate leaders of the "new" defensive Catholicism and it's use of apologetics as the primary initial approach to preaching the Truth of Catholicism. There is no doubt that there are moments and on some issues that the Church must defend itself. But a generalized defensive, apologetic vision and practice will only lead to "more Denvers."

Sex Abuse Questions: How would you answer them?

On Easter Sunday our pastor preached on the sex abuse scandal in the context of 5 people who were joining the Church. Our pastor is one of the most respected priests in the diocese. He was called out of retirement to become pastor of the parish after some serious difficulties the parish had been through recently. On April 11th he wrote a piece in the parish bulletin  (Scroll down to page 4) asking the following questions of himself, of us, and the Church itself. Here they are. See how you would answer them:

 I. The Problems of today [in the Church] were not handled as well as they could have been. The structure of the Church as begun by the Lord, handled problems differently than we might expect. Perhaps, some of the approaches to problems are archaic in our personal estimation. [Yes, No]

II. The following are general statements and do not necessarily apply to all circumstances (I put them in the form of questions for all to come to their own conclusions). .....

1. Is there [currently] an archaic understanding of humanity and the human condition, especially mind and body ???
2. Is there [currently] a misunderstanding of some maxims of theology; namely, as to the grace of God and the potentially terrible aspects of human beings???? [That] some people cannot be adequately and properly rehabilitated in spite of the grace of God. (Grace builds on nature).
3. Is there an unfortunate disregard for the importance of civil law ????
4. Is there a distorted understanding of the purpose of authority, leadership and accountability in the Church ????
5. Is there a lack of proper care or concern for those affected by the changeable nature of humanity [human "nature?"] ????
6. Is there a lack of courage to look at the fully human needs and aspects of human beings ????
7. Is there an inordinate attempt to control information ???? [In other words], Is there an attitude of secrecy to protect the Church and Church personnel and at the same time a lack of proper concern for the victims of the distortion of human beings ????

Father made three statements after listing the questions. Briefly,

• That in spite of these events and terrible revelation, that the Church will survive.
• The Church must learn from this terrible chapter in its history. Never again should a situation like this be handled as it was.Justice and mercy must be properly balanced and properly imposed.
• Our God looks down on the Church and asks, "What have they done to my people?" "How dumb could they be?" "How uncaring for all in the Church."
• Father then expresses his faith and hope in the Church.

How will you answer Father's questions? Are they fair questions? What other questions could / should be asked?


Please use the "comments" page to answer the questions and/or estimate how Father or I have answered them.

I will post his and my answers in a couple of days !!!!

NOTE: (words in parentheses in the original)  [words in brackets were added by me for clarification]

Same-sex Visitation rights and "Christians?"

Tonight the Washington Post reported that President Obama will issue an executive order to HHS to require all hospitals receiving Medicare and/or Medicaid to accept gay partners whose partner is hospitalized to grant them visitation rights the same as for family members. Hospitals must also accept partners with power of attorney on behalf of partners who have granted that power to them.

In the comments by readers there is much moaning and complaining about the "power of government" taking away the prerogatives of Congress, "telling" or "ordering" hospitals to do this instead of merely "allowing" hospitals to do this. It seems to me that this is just another example of the increasing anti-government malaise in the country at this time. It's another example of expressive individualism gone wild and a loss of a sense of the "common-weal"  or "common good."

Many of these people also need to study civics. The federal government in various ways, through Congress and the executive branch do have authority over the purse strings. Back in the 70s the federal government didn't order states to reduce speed limits to 55mph (to save gasoline). It merely said that if states wanted continued federal dollars, then they needed to reduce speed limits ("he who pays the fiddler, calls the tune."). Conservatives want government to restrict federal dollars if states or hospitals choose to perform abortions. That is their right . But why call the same procedure "unfair" in this case?


But more to the point of this post and the reason that "Christians?" is in the title. Every U.S. citizen has the right to favor or oppose this executive order. Period. However if anyone reads the reader "Comments" following the article one will discover that the majority of comments made (at the time I read them) were from so-called "Christians."  I say from so-called Christians because the comments were so vitriolic and hate filled. It was as if these people's "God"  was only a God of vengeance and that they were sent by God to separate the "sheep from the goats."

No Christian, even those who do not accept homosexuality or same-sex behavior, has the right to speak so hatefully as they have in the comments to this article. Yes to those conservatives, God is a God of Justice. But God is just as much a God of mercy, compassion and love!!!

I believe that I am a reasonably good Christian (I'll leave that judgment to God), but I strongly believe (as a Christian) that some same-sex relationships and same-sex sexual behavior are moral, just as I believe some heterosexual relationships and sexual behavior are moral.

My plea and hope is that more and more Christians will come to believe that "God is love," and will treat all "others" with love, compassion, and mercy, because what God has created is good  and all are the Children of God.

Having read the comments by "Christians," is it any wonder that so many people (and especially here, gay people) distrust, blow off and hate the Christian message in light of how "Christianity" and "Christians have treated them?

Think about it. Comments are welcome!

Denver Mess: Breslin, Chaput, two small children and gay moms

The issue that has emerged here has to do with the meaning of love. Is love heavy on compassion and light on judgment? Or does Christian love require vigilance and hard choices, separating eternal truths from passing fancies and misguided desires?  [Tom Fox, Editor, NCR]

Summary of the Mess in Denver.
The controversy over the dismissal of a young child from a parochial in Denver  because her parents were lesbians, should have been dealt with at the local level between the pastor and the girl's moms. As in the past there were a number of acceptable options for a wise, Solomon-like solution. Whether or not it was the "right thing to do," someone leaked to the press the decision to expel the girl from school.. The pastoral leaders ( Fr. Breslin and Archbishop Chaput) have "stood their ground" and "defended Church Doctrine," the parish is split over the issue and, in the meantime, the moms and children have been pushed pretty much out of the picture.

The moms agreed to an interview by the NCR. They detailed much about their lives and Catholic beliefs and practices.They described the whole procedure they went through to ensure there was common understanding between themselves and the school / parish regarding their daughters' school attendance. Even in his most recent statement, Fr. Breslin repeated the "official position" of the Church and implied that the underlying issue had to do with homosexuality. Although unstated, there was an assumption, without evidence, that the two women were sexually active. Nothing in Breslin's statement gave any indication of his having read any of the women's words. It seems to me that at least the pastor on the scene would have shown  at least some pastoral concern to hear and express understanding to the children and directly to the moms along with what they were saying.

The Larger Picture.
It is very unfortunate that this particular situation has occurred at this time, when the Church leadership is returning to a very defensive posture because it feels so under attack by raging "secularism, " "materialism." and  "internal opposition" to Papal direction. This movement toward "apologetics" began under Pope John Paul II and has been championed by Pope Benedict XVI. One of the staunchest and most articulate spokespersons for this point of view in the U.S. Church is Archbishop Chaput of Denver.

So many of the "Catholic Culture Wars" today (E.g. the "reform of the reform" in Liturgy, making the old Latin Mass equal in legitimacy to the Mass of Paul the VI, control by the Vatican of the English translation of the Mass, the refusal  to even discuss clerical celibacy, homosexuality, or married priests [except Anglican priests and some Protestant ministers who "convert"], or women priests) derive from the Holy Father's and many bishops' fear of the modern and post-modern world; excessive fear of secularism, materialism, expressive individualism and perceived opposition on the part of the laity and some priests.

The actions of both the pastor and the archbishop seem so bound into an almost post-reformation worldview that they cannot even entertain the idea that "progressive" change is possible and necessary, and quite possibly from the Holy Spirit. At least for now the faith and hope of Pope John XXIII and Vatican Council II for a Church in dialogue with a beautiful, if wounded modern world, has not been lost, but stymied for awhile.

We need fewer "Proclaimers of Certainties" like Archbishop Chaput, and more Seekers after Truth like these two moms.

Compassion

The Parable of the Prodigal Son was the Gospel reading at Mass this weekend 3/13-14. For those who have not read it see; Luke 15:11-31.

After the younger son has traversed the world beyond his home and spent all of his inheritance, he decides to return home and seek the forgiveness of his father.

While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him , and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him. (Verse 20b).

In recent posts I have spoken, with some degree of sadness and anger about what I perceive to be a lack of compassionate pastoral response from many Church leaders.

There was the case of incompassionate response to the plight of a nine year old girl who had been raped and whose mother had her twins aborted.

There was the case of the Mexican Cardinal, who spoke out so publicly and harshly about LGBT people.

There was the case where a pastor, with the support of the bishop's later public statement, removed an elementary school child from a Catholic school because his caregivers were partnered lesbians.

Why is there no indication that the little girl, gay people, and the little boy were shown compassion? It would seem that these victims who have been the first to be protected from public attention. It seems that the innocent victims would have been shown pastoral care, love and support.

But we've been there not too long ago when the victims of pedophilia were paid little attention as traumatized human beings. Money was spent to "defend" the Church's reputation. A bunch of money was transferred to some victims for counseling and psychotherapy. But why were so many hierarchs unable or unwilling to meet one-on-one with victims and feel their hurt, fragility and justifiable anger at the Church with the compassion of God as proclaimed in this parable? It seems that the bishops (and many others) are more like the elder son who was "faithful" in following the Law, but jealous and incompassionate toward his younger  brother.

 I have deep faith in and hope for the Christian-Catholic community. However, particularly these days the  institutional bureaucracy of the Church is called to a continued repentance and to heed the Gospel call in the way it operates. There are those in the Church (both clergy and laity) who believe that the essence of the Church and Christian Life are to "follow the Law" as laid out in legal fashion as the means to spiritual growth and salvation. It is sufficient to know the rules and obey them. They have been called "Proclaimers of Certainty" because they believe they already know God's plan and can administer it. In many cases, those who believe this way are more comfortable with the words and images expressed in Deut: 21:18-21.

There are others in the Church, who by no means reject the value of Law and rules. However they see these as ideals to be striven for, but maybe never reached, in the attempt to be true to the Gospel, to Jesus; to be compassionate. Take for example,  Archbishop Quinn when he was in San Francisco. He was able to work out arrangements for the availability of heath benefits for gays who worked for Catholic agencies and to honor and keep to the Church's teachings about homosexuality. Those who believe this way are more comfortable with Psalm 103, especially verses 4, 8, and 12-13

What appears in some of my posts as anger, is really frustration and a call to take seriously the Gospel message and the teachings of Vatican II, rather than a view in which Law trumps compassion and Love.

Now it's not enough to be against gays themselves?

Today CNN reported on a young grade school student who was "disenrolled" (I.e. kicked out) of a Catholic Parochial School. Why? Because the parents were partnered lesbians!

Now a child will suffer for the "sins" of the parents. The pastor took the action, and was supported in a public statement by the Chancery (I.e the bishop) because the same-sex couple were violating the teaching of the Church forbidding same-sex sexual behavior.
 
How did the pastor or bishop know that the couple were having sex?

Regardless of their private behavior, was it appropriate to punish the child? And you better believe the child will be negatively affected.

Where is the compassion of Christ in this situation? I am distant from the actual incident, but at least as reported, I see no reaching out with care, love and compassion to the child.There seems to be no compassion offered to  the couple either. Again as reported, for church leaders to say, adults should know the teaching and obey it or suffer the consequences, seems hardly Christlike  [I will certainly will correct distortion of facts, if they are brought to my attention].

One has only to recall the Mexican Cardinal who uttered such hateful words about homosexuals. The Vatican had to remind the Cardinal that even the Catholic Catechism  requires respect for homosexuals. What about the often (usual?) formal, impersonal treatment or total neglect of sex abuse victims here in the U.S?

The argument about the hurtful outcome for the child and other children in the school and the "scandal" caused to the laity" are those commonly dragged out. Some churchmen must begin to realize that the laity are hard to scandalize. The most recent case I can remember of the laity being scandalized is at the cover-up behavior of bishops who hid the crimes of pedophilia.

Just think of what a Catholic/Christian response of love and compassion might look like. The clergy would plainly state there was a pastoral concern for the child and the couple. They could, personally and through others show deep understanding, support and love for the child. They could speak with (not to) the couple and at least appreciate their lives and love for each other.

Thirteen years ago when Cardinal Laveda was archbishop of San Francisco, he was able to work with others to discover a way for same-sex couples to share health benefits and remain employed by Catholic agencies without violating Catholic teaching or principles. Can't at least this kind of solution be arrived at?

We need to act with the love and compassion of Christ FIRST and then deal with the words we use to express the beliefs Catholics hold.

Earlier in the day I had been commenting on a friend D's joy and happiness over being a godparent; the hope he has to support, nurture and love DA, and the big celebration the family had. I shared with him my joy in becoming Confirmation sponsor for my nephew who is 14.

After hearing about the above "incident," I began to ponder what kind of Church these youngsters will grow up into: one showing greater compassion or one so bound to statements of "teachings" and "correctness" that love and compassion will wither. I do agree here with the Holy Father that what we need  is to maintain hope. 

Could Jesus be gay?

The headline in the Guardian  read, "Jesus is Gay, Says Elton."  Regardless of who said it, this presents us with an opportunity to reflect on both Jesus and gays.

Sir Elton John, 62, in an interview with Parade Magazine, said  he believed Jesus Christ was a "...compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems."

He also said, "On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wants us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East - you're as good as dead."

There  was immediate negative response from Bill Donohue, a reactionary, self-proclaimed "protector" of what he thinks is "orthodox Catholicism," He said, "Jesus was certainly compassionate, but to say he was 'super-intelligent' is to compare Jesus the son of God to a successful game-show host."

He continues, "More seriously, to call Jesus a homosexual is to label him a sexual deviant."

Even more theologically wrong-headed was the statement made by Stephen Green, Director of the right-wing Christian group "Christian Voice." He said, "Jesus was without sin and that rules out homosexuality."

Even from the conservative, official, Catholic teachings these statements are false and can be refuted.

Being homosexual is never in and of itself sinful just as being left-handed or blue-eyed is not sinful. The Church teaches pure and simply that there are people who are homosexual and who cannot "change." In fact for a gay to deny who he is in God's plan  and try to change his very being would be sinful.

As for Donohue, he confuses the Church's teaching that homosexuality is an "objective disorder" (which I do not accept), with a moral evil when he says that if homosexual, Jesus is a sexual deviant. Bill ought to be more careful. Even in the View of the Vatican, if Jesus is homosexual he could only be a "sexual deviant" in the Church's eyes if he engaged in homosexual behaviors. If Jesus were gay the institutional Church would "require him to carry the cross of celibacy."

If Jesus is like us in all things but sin, even by the Church's teaching this allows for being homosexual, just as it would allow for Jesus to have a spontaneous erection when an attractive person came by. The real issue for Jesus and a Christian is "What is God's will for me to do here and now?"

Much of what Elton John said about Jesus' compassion and message of love seems not to have been heard by Donohue or Green. Perhaps they should listen to all that others say.

On the other hand, a spokesman for the Church of England was much more moderate. He said, "Sir Elton's reflection that Jesus calls us all  to love and forgive is one shared by all Christians. But insights into aspects of the historic person of Jesus are perhaps best left to the academics."

It may be true that professional theologians have much work to do. But in raising the question of Jesus' orientation and linking it with his compassion, love, and forgiveness, Elton John may have accomplished two things: First, to raise serious theological questions with which we must now deal and, second, to point out to everyone that we must look upon LGBT people with greater compassion, acceptance and love.