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.

Same-Sex Marriage and Religion: Support Increases (Corrected 10-20-10)

On 6 October 2010, the Pew Research Center released a new report on the amount of support for “Gay Marriage” in the United States. Data presented include current (Collected July21-August 5 2010) statistics and comparisons back to 1996 for some characteristics. This post will speak about support or opposition among religious categories in the nation. Looking at the nation as a whole, 42% of Americans support gay marriage and 48% oppose gay marriage.  Support  for same-sex marriage rose from 27% in 1996 to the current 42%. and opposition fell from 65% in 1994 to the current 48%.  Greater detail on the population as a whole will be discussed in a later post. (NOTE: The only correction is in the first paragraph. The original data reported for the nation as a whole was for support (60%) / opposition (30%) for gays serving in the military. The data for "gay marriage" above is now correct)

Religion and Same-Sex Marriage 
I will present data on All Protestants, including three sub categories: White Evangelicals, White Mainline, and Black Protestants. There are Data for Catholics, including: White Catholics and Hispanics. Some information on religious Jews is presented. The final category includes All the Unaffiliated. The data for all religious categories are based on self-identification of “member” status.
When data are available for frequency of attendance (Attend Weekly or Attend Less [than weekly]) they are presented. Frequency of attendance is just about the best predictor of religious beliefs, behavior and position on many issues.

ALL Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and the Unaffiliated.
+ Among all Protestants, 31% support gay marriage, an increase of 4% over 2008-09.
+ Among all Catholics, 46%  support gay marriage, an increase of 4% over 2008-09.
+ Among all Jews, 75% support gay marriage,  an increase of 1% over 2008-09.
+ Among all Unaffiliated, 62% support gay marriage, a decrease of 1% over 2008-08.
It is clear that the greatest support for gay marriage is by the Jews and the Unaffiliated. What is more interesting in light of the Catholic hierarchy’s very strong opposition to same-sex marriage is that 46% of the Catholic people support gay marriage and this is 15% higher than among Protestants. Of course when we look within each category we will find great variation. Finally, the greatest growth over the past year in support for gay marriage is among Catholics and Protestants, at 4% for each.
Protestants
The variation within Protestants is well indicated by the fact that that three-quarters (74%) of White Evangelicals oppose  gay marriage as well as 62% of the members of predominantly Black Protestant churches. Half (49%) of Mainline Protestants support gay marriage. This shows a real chasm between types of Protestants.
Catholics.
The data on Catholics are presented for White Catholics and Hispanic Catholics, who are thought to be more “conservative” or “traditional.” The gap between White (49%) and Hispanic (42%) support for gay marriage is much smaller than within Protestantism. More White Catholics than Hispanic Catholics support same-sex marriage, by 9 percentage points. It is quite noteworthy that nearly half of both Mainline Protestants (49%) and White Catholics (49%) support gay marriage. Among the “traditional” Christian groups, then, White Catholics and Mainline Protestants are the most supportive same-sex marriage.
Jews and the Unaffiliated.
Jews are more supportive of gay marriage than any other religious group. In fact, 76% of religious Jews support, and only 18% oppose, marriage for Gays. The data for Jews does not permit any further analysis.
The Unaffiliated may or may not be “religious” or “spiritual” but none of them claim membership in one of the “standard” religious groups like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, etc.  Among all the unaffiliated, 62% support gay marriage. Looking only at those who say they are agnostic or atheistic, 80% support gay marriage. Based on “religious beliefs” this category is more supportive of gay marriage than any other category or sub-category studied here. Among those who say they are “Nothing Particular,” (some of whom are generically Christian without claiming membership in a particular church or denomination) support gay marriage (57%).

Church Attendance.
In the sociological literature “church attendance” at Sunday worship and other services (E.g. Wednesday Prayer Services, Daily Mass) is considered one of the best predictors of religious beliefs, values, norms and of behavior itself (E.g. support or opposition to abortion). Many conservative Christians define “true Christians” by their attendance or not at religious services. For example there is debate in the Roman Catholic Church over who are “good Catholics” or “practicing Catholics.”  More conservative Catholics tend to believe that “good” Catholics are only those who go to Mass every Sunday, strictly follow all the teachings of the Pope, and support the hierarchy’s positions on “hot-button” issues like birth control, abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage.
These data are presented only as “Church attendance” and do not include references to beliefs or other behaviors. For the nation as a whole:
24% of those who attend church one a week or more frequently support gay marriage. (Opposed: 68%).
49% of those who attend church “monthly to yearly” support gay marriage. (Opposed: 40%).
59% of those who “seldom or never” attend church services support gay marriage. (Opposed: 29%).
Denominational Church Attendance,
When the sample sizes allow it, data are presented for the larger religious categories, including:
+ White Evangelicals Weekly+ 14% support.  Less often 31% support (Opposed: 81% and 61%).
+ White Mainliners Weekly+ 35% support. Less often  53% support  (Opposed: 57% and 33%).
+ Black Protestants Weekly+ 22% support. Less often 37% support  (Opposed: 69% and 53%).  
+ White Catholics Weekly+ 34% support. Less often  59% support  (Opposed: 55% and 31%).
It is clear that over one-third of Mainline Protestants (35%) and Catholics (34%), who regularly attend church the most, support gay marriage in 2010. In each religious category, those who attend church the most frequently are less supportive of gay marriage than those who attend less frequently. In rank ordering opposition to gay marriage, Evangelicals (81%) are most likely to be in opposition and Roman Catholics (55%) are least likely to oppose gay marriage whether or not they are regular attenders. It is clear that the majority of those who attend church are significantly more opposed to gay marriage  than is the general population (48%). But to me it is important to note that as many churches as do, support gay marriage, from 14% for Evangelicals to 59% among Catholics (even in light of the persistent opposition to gay marriage from the Pope, Vatican Congregations, national hierarchies and individual bishops).

Generational support for gay marriage.
Age is an important factor in explaining attitude toward same-sex marriage. Between 1996 and 2010, if we look at the entire US population aged 18 and over, we can note that support for gay marriage has increased for each generation as shown below:
Millennials: born 1981 - 
51% support to 53% support gay marriage.
Gen-Xers: born 1965-1980 
40% to 48% support gay marriage.
Baby Boomers: 1946-1964 
26% to 38% support gay marriage.
Silent Generation: 1928-1945  
20% to 29% support gay marriage.
Greatest Generation: Born before 1928
16% to 15% support gay marriage.
Every generation (except the “Greatest Generation”) has become more supportive of gay marriage. For each generation born between 1928 and 1980, the increase in support for same-sex marriage has been approximately ten percentage points. Those born before 1928, and who are well into their 80s, are the least supportive of gay marriage. Of greater interest are the Millennials. Between 2003 (when they began to turn 18) and 2010  their support for gay marriage increased by “just 2%”, in a relatively short time span; it will be very interesting to see what the percentage change will be in the next 10-15 years.

Religious “Younger Generations” and Support for Gay Marriage.
In the general population, among those 18-29 we find over half (53%) support gay marriage in 2010. This is a one percent increase over 2008-2009. Among those 30-49, not quite half (46%) support gay marriage (This is an astounding 7% increase in one year). Because of sample sizes the break down of age categories makes it impossible to speak of these two categories separately. Thus, the data by religious categories will be presented from the most accepting of gay marriage to the least accepting for those 18-49 years old:
66% of the unaffiliated favor gay marriage. This is 10 points higher than those 50+
58% of Catholics favor gay marriage. This is 19 points higher than those 50+
54% of Mainliners favor gay marriage. This is 10 points higher than those 50+
26% of Evangelicals favor gay marriage. This is 11 points higher than those 50+
Clearly the younger generations of the Unaffiliated are the most in favor of gay marriage. Noticeably well over one-half of Catholics (58%) and Mainline Protestants (54%) support gay marriage. On the other hand only about one-quarter (26%) of Evangelicals support same-sex marriages. Among all groups, except Catholics, the increase in acceptance in one year was about 10%. The increased acceptance of gay marriage by Catholics over a one ear period was almost double (19%) that of the other three categories. Understanding those in the 18-29 age group, and those soon to became 18, is critical. The questions is: Which religious groups actually are meeting the needs of these young persons? How are they doing it? What are the messages and programs that meet young people in terms of their own concrete lives?

A Summary and an interpretation, of Sorts.
The descriptive statistics presented here suggest a number of questions to ponder.
To what extent do religious groups face the actual lived reality of gay people in their congregations / parishes, local communities and the nation? It seems especially, that Black Protestants, Evangelicals, and Catholic leaders have great difficulty understanding the real lives of their LGBT adherents.
White Evangelicals have yet to see an extreme gap between the leadership and their people regarding gay marriage. But the gap between what is officially taught by Catholic leaders and the attitudes of the bulk of Catholics is quite severe. As mentioned, even one-third of “good Catholics” who attend Mass weekly or more often support gay marriage. A question is, can this gap be reduced? Catholic leaders often say, “Catholic doctrine and moral issues are not determined by ‘opinion polls’.” I agree with this statement. But I argue that public opinion polls do tell us “where the people are” and that where the people are must be taken into account as one of the sources which help determine the development and application of moral decision making in concrete situations.
How do each of the different religious groups meet the immediate needs of LGBT persons? How much compassion is shown to gay persons in general and where are programs or ministries at the congregation or parish level that receive LGBT persons with acceptance and love for the human beings they are?
Whether or not homosexual behavior is perceived as due to “secularism,” the “Devil” or as a grace from God, religious groups must come to understand that gays are human beings born gay and that an attitude of tolerance and acceptance is growing over the years. Why do so many churches, synagogues and other religious institutions neglect to speak about and to gays with compassion?  Why do they only preach how homosexuality is evil and/or homosexual behaviors or gay marriage are evil, rather than face up to the reality that gays and gay behavior is human and exists? Can’t religious groups at least listen, really listen to LGBT persons and admit dialogue about gay life in the context of justice and love?
How can and will religious institutions deal with the youth of today, especially those 15 or 16 to 20 or 22, who increasingly take for granted that there simply are gay people, that gay people are just like themselves except in sexual orientation and sexual behavior, that many of their good friends are gay, and they just do not understand why gays are not left alone to become who they are meant to be.
On the other hand, how can and will religious institutions deal with those (and not just teenagers) who are harassed, bullied, subject to violence and even death from ignorant, misguided or fearful individuals who attack LGBT persons?  And if religious leaders could admit and accept the reality of GLBT life, they might do better forming their own members to be more accepting of gays rather let them, perhaps, fall into the hatred of a Fred Phelps and  Westboro Baptist Church.
Gay marriage is but one facet of how we live together with each other in justice, peace and love. But the data from this study indicate at least one thing, support for gay marriage is increasing and neither “this issue” nor other “gay-related issues” are going to just “go away.”

See this significant article: Gay Bullying and Death: Are Believers the Problem of the Solution?
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/07/gay-bullying-deaths-and-religion-are-believers-the-problem-or-t/

 See also: What is a Catholic Response to Gay Suicide?
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3363

See also:  Are We Complicit?
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3363
   
I encourage any one who wishes to leave a comment, pro or con, or questions!!!!

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."

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.

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.  

The environment, Religion (and gays again?)

Although Christians have been given a bad rap because of the translation of  "subdue the earth" in Genesis, they might more accurately be criticized for accepting and reinforcing exploitative Capitalism. Be that as it may, there are many examples of Christians caring for our world, (E.g. St. Francis of Assisi). These days even Evangelical Protestants are very involved in "stewardship of the earth" (E.g. Sojourners, Jim Wallace).


Benedict's Action, not just words
Pope Benedict XVI has become extremely interested and active in environmental issues. On 26 November 2008  the Vatican began operation of a solar system (powered by 1,000 solar panels atop a major building in Vatican) for heat, lighting, air conditioning etc. Digital displays were installed  in the building so that visitors could visually see the energy savings.

Shortly after this project was in operation, The Vatican created a climate forest on a very large tract of land in Hungary. Enough trees  were planted to make up for all the carbon dioxide emitted in Vatican City State. The Vatican's aim is to make itself the first "carbon neutral" state in Europe. None of this could have been accomplished without the support and urging of Pope Benedict. "The [solar panel] project received the 2008 Euro Solar prize, awarded by by the European Association for Renewable Energy, a secular body." (See Allen, page 298).


Benedict's words support the cause of environmentalism
Although many religious leaders, especially popes are noted for using lots and lots of words, here is an example of action to be a good steward of creation and promote environmentalism. However, following upon JP II, Benedict has spoken and written much on protecting the environment. Without discussing each, I will merely list some of the "environmental issues" important to Benedict:

Climate change and global warming
Desertification
Degradation and loss of productivity in vast agricultural region
Pollution of rivers and aquifers
Loss of biodiversity
Increase in extreme weather
Deforestation of equatorial and tropical areas
Displacement of populations and "environmental refugees"
Conflict over natural resources
The global economic crisis (E.g. the selfish activities of the investment industry)
 
Benedict also proposed strategies to begin work toward protecting the environment:
1. A new mode of calculating the cost of economic activity that would factor in environmental impact
2. Greater investment in solar and other forms of energy with a  reduced environmental footprint
3. Strategies of rural development concentrated on small-scale farmers and their families
4. Progressive disarmament, including a world free of nuclear weapons


Praise and criticism of Benedict's position
A wide variety of environmentalists, whether religious or secular, have praised and supported Benedict's efforts. However, there are many who also disagree with his position. Some secularists are generally uncomfortable with Benedict's emphasis on the role he allows for a creator-god, natural law and the defense of human life (E.g. his anti-abortion stance and belief that population control is not acceptable).

Interestingly there are a large number of influential conservative Catholics who oppose the pope. Only two examples will be mentioned. An American deacon, Kieth Fournier, who fears that Benedict it too closely aligned with eco-centrists and bio-centrism is worried that the pope or Church may, "open the way to a new pantheism tinged with Neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's [sic] salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms." Tom Roeser, a Chicago "Catholic, recently wrote that Benedict's call for new government controls on the environment in his World Peace Day message 'reflects a Bismarkian view of the big state, versus appreciation of the value of entrepreneurism'." (See "Eco Skeptics)


Progressive Catholics can support Benedict, but how far?
It seems that Vatican II Progressive Catholics might find common ground to dialogue, support and work with Benedict on the environment. However, the greatest furor with the  most publicity related to Benedict's brand of "green environmentalism" relates to the way he expresses, uses, and exemplifies, the valid Catholic position that the human person is central to all life.

In the fourth paragraph of his speech to the diplomatic corps accredited to the  Holy See, Benedict says, "...this concern...for the environment should be situated within [a] larger framework...how can we separate, or even set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human life, including the life of the unborn." This is the only mention of the right-to-life controversey.


Why bring up "the Gay Issue" here? Why bash Gays?
The tenth paragraph of the speech begins, "To carry our reflection further..." However what follows has no immediate and direct connection to the previous paragraphs. The pope goes on to say that,

"...the problem of the environment is complex....Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered in different ways....One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America. Saint Columban stated that: 'If you take away freedom, you take away dignity."....Yet freedom cannot be absolute, since man is not himself God....For man, the path to be taken cannot be determined by caprice or willfulness, but must rather correspond to the structure willed by the creator. (emphasis added).

My reading and my interpretation

Gay individuals, gay organizations, and heterosexual individuals who support human rights erupted in vocal opposition to these words and the message they send. A few immediate observations: Why use such a strong, aggressive word, as attack, here? Why is it necessary to fight  proposals designed to end discrimination? So is the attack necessary to fight against those who (in God's plan) are born homsexual? That can't be! Is Benedict implying that homosexuals take the path they do because of caprice or willfulness?

I think Benedict's statements in the tenth paragraph are a gratuitous, unnecessary insertions of the institutional Church's current understanding of homosexuals and homosexuality, primarily to make a point.These words were not necessary to make the argument about environmentalism.  It certainly makes one wonder whether the pope and "the Church" can even  comprehend that gay people are real individuals with the same needs and wants as every individual. (BTW, I don't think "the Church" appreciates that there are thousands and thousands of gays just in the U.S., who are or "were Catholic" and who could respond to the Church, as the People of God, if the People of God offered  an open hand of repentance, acceptance and love.


Conclusion: Where he's on target. Where he's off-base
In the end, Benedict XVI has made tremendous practical strides on environmental issues; all Catholics, at least moderate and progressive Catholics, can accept, support and further these changes. This is good. It may open a crack through  the door of collegial cooperation for the sake of the Gospel. A lot of work remains for us. We must nurture and support a love of the world and its culture as it is now. We must see the glass of modernity and post-modernity as, at least,  half full rather than half empty.

Finally, we must pry open a real, compassionate dialogue between LGBT people and the hierarchy (as well as well as in the local parish and neighborhood), lest the discrimination, harassment and unwillingness to support gays in their love and its human expressions........lead us become another Uganda and waste so many lives of God's children.


Another resource:
 "For Pope Benedict, a Different Shade of Green."

UGANDA UPDATE # 3 Good news, sort of...

On 14 January The Guardian (London, UK) reported that Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni announced that the Anti-Homosexual Act of 2009, "had become a 'foreign policy' issue and needed further consultation before being voted on in parliament." The Guardian reported in the same article that, "James Nasba Buturo, minister of state for ethics and integrity, who is a strong supporter of the bill, said, before Museveni's speech that it was likely that the death penalty provisions would be dropped because of the international outcry." Who made the outcry?

The Gay community.
Gay, human rights organizations and Amnesty International immediately expressed strong opposition to passage of this bill which would restrict the rights and endanger the lives of the estimated 500,000 gays and lesbians in Uganda.

Western Governments.
The international outcry from governments was not immediate but it came. Many western industrialized nations criticized this legislation, including: Australia, Canada, the UK and France. The European Parliament and Sweden threatened to reduce economic aid if the law passes. Former President Clinton, Secretary of State Clinton and four U.S. congress persons have made individual public statements opposing the law. After a telephone call from Hillary Clinton, "...to express strong concerns about the proposed law, [Museveni, the President] said, 'It's a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way that does not compromise our principles but also takes into account our foreign policy interests'."

Part of the reason that governments (and, as will be mentioned below, international religious leaders) were slower to act, is based on the complexity of the situation and international relations. Anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda were introduced by the British during the colonial period. Also, the general Ugandan (and African) culture is very conservative with regard to family and sexual mores. In more recent years, conservative Evangelical Christian missionaries have reinforced and expanded upon the traditional mores to intensify and provide a new rationale for anti-gay norms and laws, attitudes and values. Finally, the opposition of the West to anti-gay norms, laws and behavior is seen by many African governments as just a new version of colonialism: to shove down the throats of the people of Africa the "decadent" and "immoral" lifestyle of the West, including homosexuality. As a result, Western governments took stock to see if their "interference" would help the situation or merely increase the nationalist feelings in Uganda. It seems to me that the tide turned as gays and straight supporters mounted ever greater pressure on their governments and that Uganda "backed down" once Western nations threatened to withhold financial aid.

What about the international religious community? They too had the same concern as governments about whether their speaking out would help or hinder passage of the bill. For the churches, the decision was doubly difficult: they had only moral suasion and no money to withhold and for two important religious communities, namely the Roman Catholic Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, there were internal issues that had to be considered.

The Anglican Communion.
Uganda is an anglophone nation and the Anglican church there is quite significant. Many, if not most, of the Anglican bishops (E.g. Ugandan bishop Joseph Arbura of the Karamoja Diocese) in Africa hold very conservative positions regarding sex, especially regarding gay marriage, gays and women as priests and, especially active gays as bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury was caught between this group and, for example, the practice of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., most of which accepts and supports gays and a minority of parishes that wish to join African Anglican dioceses or the Roman Catholic Church. After much private communication, On December 12th the Archbishop Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said in an interview with the Telegraph (a London newspaper) [See sixth paragraph in the interview]:

Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can't see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible - it seeks to turn pastors into informers.

Finally, the Archbishop of York (UK), John Sentamu, himself a Ugandan spoke out publicly on December 24th, saying, "I'm opposed to the death sentence. I'm also not happy when you describe people in that kind of language you find in this private member's bill, which seems not only victimizing but also a diminishment of the individuals concerned."

The Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has its own difficulties with homosexuality but is unalterably opposed to capital punishment and the harassment or oppression of innocent individuals. Although the Church speaks of homosexuality as "objectively disordered" (whatever that really means), it clearly accepts that gay orientation is a "given"  for gays. This means that some people are simply born with a homosexual orientation, period. On the other hand the Catholic Church teaches that the only legitimate sex is between a married male and female. (There are a number of Catholic moral theologians, and a majority of  Catholics in the U.S. who do not not accept this position).

The Vatican felt it had to condemn capital punishment and the harsh punishments in the law and affirm its teaching that gays should be treated with respect and compassion as are any other citizens. The Vatican, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, realized the danger to priests, counselors, social workers, etc. if they were required to report homosexuals to the authorities and, themselves, face prison. As often happens with the Vatican, its position was made indirectly but officially. In a statement to the UN Panel on Anti-Gay Violence, on December 10th, the Rev. Philip J. Bene, the Vatican's Legal attache said,

Thank you for convening this panel.... My comments are more in the form of a statement rather than aquestion.

As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.

As raised by some of the panelists today, the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State...

Finally, after the Anti-Homosexual bill was tabled in the parliament, the Catholic bishops of Uganda made a public statement. Admittedly, it was not as clear, direct and forthright as some hoped for. Dr. Cyrian Kizto Lwanga, Archbishop of Kampala, began the statement with, "We, the Catholic Bishops of Uganda, appreciate and applaud the Government's effort to protect the traditional families and its values." [After following this debate and the language used, I wonder if this opening statement is not a code for, "We affirm the idea of keeping the fact of being homosexual illegal]. He continues,

The recent tabled Anti-Homosexuality Bill does not pass a test of Christian caring approach to this issue. The targeting of the sinner, not the sin, is the core flaw of the proposed Bill. The introduction of the death penalty and imprisonment for homosexual acts targets people rather than seeking to counsel and to reach out in compassion to those who need conversion, repentance, support and hope...

Furthermore, the Proposal to prosecute those who fail to disclose information regarding homosexual acts puts at risk the breach of confidentiality and professional ethics of persons such as Parents, Priests, Counselors, Teachers... at a time when they offer support and advise [sic] for rehabilitation of homosexuals. The Proposed Bill does not contain clauses encouraging homosexuals to be rehabilitated.... [All bold print in the original].

This is a rejection of the bill, at least a rejection  of the death and harsh punishment of homosexuals as well as protection for parents, priests and others who have knowledge about homosexuals. However, the statement clearly proffers an explanation of  homosexuality as something learned or chosen and therefore in need of "rehabilitation." I wonder what kind of support and advice the bishops have in mind: to learn to be "chaste." One can hope it doesn't hearken to "restorative therapy" as recommended to the Ugandan Government by three invited conservative Evangelical preachers. In any event, the Ugandan Bishops' statement seems at the very best to be lukewarm.

Recent examples of Gay marriage and homosexuality in "Catholic" Latin America:
We Do: Mexico City Blazes Trail with Legalisation of Same-Sex Marriage. (22 Dec 2009)
Vatiacn: Gay: deserve respect, compassion.
Argentina men become first same-sex married couple. (29 Dec 2009) (Pic, without DSL may load slowly)

Other Religious influences.
On December 7th, sixty-six U.S Christian Leaders issued a public statement opposing the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009 in Uganda. It says in part:

Our Christian faith recognizes violence, harassment and unjust treatment of any human being as a betrayal of Jesus' command to love our neighbors as ourselves. As followers of the teachings of Christ, we must express profound dismay at a bill currently before the Parliament in Uganda.

....Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of homosexuality, in our churches, communities and families, we seek to embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as God's children worthy of respect and love.

The first signers of the statement were Thomas P. Melady, Former U.S. Ambassador to Uganda and the Vatican; Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action; and Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners.

This statement is welcome, as are those by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Catholic bishops of Uganda, for clearly opposing the severe penalties against homosexual persons and those who know and/ or support homosexual persons.

However none of these statements speak to or supports decriminalization of homosexuality or homosexual behavior. This is a challenge that most Christians have not yet faced; nor have they seriously been able to dialogue about other fundamental issues related to the very nature and morality of homosexual behavior.


Evangelicals.
Conservative Evangelical Protestants in the United States and in Uganda, itself, have spoken out in favor of the bill or have remained silent about it. However some, like Rick Warren have spoken out against the excessive punishments in the bill. Still Warren and many other Evagelicals maintain strong opposition to homosexuality. At best, they espouse the idea of  "love the sinner, hate the sin." Like the Ugandan Catholic bishops?

Four Evangelical clergymen are now trying to distance themselves from the three-day conference they presented in Uganda to thousands of police, national politicians, teachers and others in March, 2009, one month before MP David Bahati first introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The following list of articles discuss this issue further, some including hateful and vicious comments made about homosexuals:
Americans' Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push (NYT 4 Jan 2010)
Hate Begets Hate NYT editorial 5 Jan 2010
R.W. Johnson: The Battle Over Homophobia in Africa  (National Post, Canada. 12 Jan 2010

My Reflections.


1. It appears that the death penalty, and possibly the requirement to report homosexuals, with be removed from the proposed legislation; that is a battle won but not the war. Uganda will still have a host of harsh anti-homosexual laws as do many other African nations, some of which have the death penalty.

2.The leading nations of the "West" (since the fall of the Soviet system and the move toward market-based economics in China, more suitably called the "The North") and two (Anglican and Catholic) of the three (Pentecostals) most important Christian communions in Uganda, spoke in opposition to the harsh penalties in the law. This may have been politically prudent to help lessen an outcry from Africa that this move was merely a new form of colonialism and to assuage the ire of their own more conservative hierarchs and members. In my opinion, none of the groups placed their responses in the larger context of society. 

3. Here the immediate issue related to this extremely inhuman proposal  is, and let us put it plainly, to kill homosexual people. But an underlying issue is how the countries of the South and North will relate on a whole host of issues, only some of which are related to sex (E.g. the AIDS epidemic, the use of condoms, the nature of marriage and the family).

In the area of what Catholics call "social justice" issues there is great potential for disagreement and conflict between North and South. In Uganda more than a few leaders railed against the North for interfering with their culture (the homosexuality issue) and said the North ought to be more concerned with "justice issues" such as economic development, the plight of the poor, and the environment. However, many in Africa, and Latin America even more so, are negative on globalization, the capitalist system, and modern forms of democracy, and especially the supremacy of the United States and its spreading of a degrading materialistic and highly individualistic culture.

4. Somehow real homosexual people seem to have been left out of the equation. Reading all the material I have on this issue, other than a few mentions of "compassion" for "them," no one's head or heart seemed to take into account that homosexuals are people just like every one else. Gays are born, live and die just like everyone else, Homosexual persons have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else, Many engage in selfless, altruistic behavior and some do not-- but not any more or less than heterosexuals! Most of all, LGBT individuals have the same goal in life as straights: to be happy and, in the end, to have lived a life well lived. Gays want to love and be loved just like others do; gays are not sex-crazed, selfish people who seek only their own pleasure. Unless one has shared an intimate connection to a homosexual person, it is often difficult to get beyond stereotypes and homophobia. I am sad that the the kind of values, attitudes and behavior that arise out of real intimacy with gays (certainly not always, and perhaps, almost never physical) is not more common. I'm sad too that the public statements by government and religious bodies did not show at least some appreciation for LGBT people as people. Finally, I look forward to, and will continue to work for the day when a distinction between gay and straight will enter conversation no more frequently than whether one is left or right handed. That will be the day when any two people who love each other can express that love and, perhaps, marry each other; that will be the day when no one will be oppressed by harsh and negative laws that say gays are "different."