Interfaith Leaders Denounce Bigotry Against Muslims.

FLASH- UPDATE Benedict speaking in the UK about freedom of worship, and strongly supports the call to ecumenical dialogue and for respect for other religions and faith communities. 0-17-10.

After nine years, the 9-11 memorial in New York remains unfinished. Apart from any technical difficulties, there have been many kinds of disagreements, squabbles, even fights over the memorial. All of these differences and disagreements pale in light of the polarization that characterizes this nation today over plans by Muslims to build a Muslim Center (which will contain a Mosque and prayer space for those of other religions).
It is very understandable that some, perhaps very many, of the survivors, their families, and close friends would carry resentment, even hatred, toward the terrorists and by extension Muslims or Islam. All of us are human after all.
The question is, why have so many other Americans become so upset and angry over building the Center; even to the point of willingness to abrogate key portions of the US Constitution?
It seems to me that the “causes” are many and complex. Some of the things that have affected this outpouring of opposition and even hatred include:

1. A general frightening feeling that “America,” has or is loosing it’s preeminent status as the “world power.”
2. Confusion and frustration over two “wars” that have produced partial military solutions but without viable political solutions even after the deaths of thousands of people and spending millions and millions of dollars prosecuting these “wars.”
3. The tremendous US and international economic collapse we are suffering, with loss of jobs, many of which will never return, the inadequacy of healthcare reform, and gridlock resulting in a lack of faith in the recovery and re-attainment of secure jobs.
4. The seeming exploitation of the economic “recovery” by politicians and media for their own political gain or increased ratings.
5. Woefully inadequate knowledge of the history of the Middle East and even a more abysmal lack of understanding of Islam.
6. and perhaps most of all the development and use of extreme “Christian” anti-Islamic attitudes and actions against Islam. Think of “burning Korans” or marches with nasty signs in Murfreesboro, TN. 

An Interfaith Response.
.
On September 7, 2010 representatives of Mainline Protestant (Eg. Methodists and Episcopalians, the Orthodox) Christians, Roman Catholic Christians, Evangelical Christians, Jewish, and Muslim religious leaders met to present a very strong and positive message, calling all religious people witness to their one God of Love, justice, and mercy.
The statement begins with these strong words:

As religious leaders in this great country, we have come together in our nation’s capital to denounce categorically the derision, misinformation and outright bigotry being directed against America’s Muslim community. We bear a sacred responsibility… to promote a culture of mutual respect and the assurance of religious freedom for all… we announce a new era of interfaith cooperation. (Emphasis in original).

The statement continues to make several points:

1. There is support for the Constitutional and traditional Freedom of Religion. They claim the right to, “give witness to our own moral convictions in the public square as well as individual, “freedom to worship in congregations of our own choosing.
2. That rather than give in to, “the anti-Muslim frenzy that has been generated over the plans to build an Islamic center and mosque… near Ground Zero,” the Interfaith group proposes that we, “…not… debate the the Park 51 project [center and mosque] anew, but rather respond to the atmosphere of fear and contempt for fellow Americans of the Muslim faith that the controversy has generated.
3. That as Americans and people of faith, “We stand by the principle that to attack any religion in the United States is to do violence to the religious freedom of all Americans.”
4. Realizing that in a globalizing world religious differences must not “…lead to hostility or division between communities… that no religion should be judged on the words or actions of those who seek to pervert it through acts of violence… that bearing false witness against our neighbor – something condemned by all three of our religious traditions – must be counteracted by truly seeking to understand “the Other” and building on our common belief in a God of love, justice and mercy.
5. That, “Leaders of local congregations have a special responsibility to teach with accuracy, fairness and respect about other faith traditions” and to discover ways to extend interfaith collaboration into common action through interfaith, “education, inter-congregational visitations, and service programs that redress social ills…”
6. That as the diligent work of our scholars has shown, “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all see an intimate link between faithfulness to God and love of neighbor; a neighbor who in many instances is the stranger in our midst.” It is by beginning at the point we all can agree on –love of God and neighbor- that we can live in harmony in a diverse, global world.

A few observations.

This document was signed by 35 religious leaders (See last 3 pages of the statement) by a goodly number of Jewish and Muslim leaders and Evangelical, Orthodox, Mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic leaders (including Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, DC; Fr. James Massa representing the USCCB; and Mr. Nicholas Richardson, Communications Director of the Archdiocese of New York).
In light of this charged situation, these leaders spoke as prophets arising out of the best of their traditions.
They made the very wise decision to condemn violence and hatred. They went on to emphasize that the beginning of dialogue and action must arise from what we hold in common –Love of God and neighbor- and not from our differences (only a few of which are very serious and difficult to deal with).
Pope Paul VI, in Evangelii Nuntiandi, asked why do we send out missionaries? His answer effectively said not to “convert” others but to live the joy of the Gospel in such a way that some others would be attracted to the Faith by the action of God in their hearts. We might ask, “Why care about the Muslims? Isn’t our Christian task to proselytize them and convert them to Christianity? I would say, at this moment, we Christians ought to live our Gospel and love our Muslim Neighbor. We can leave the “converting” to God.

These leaders correctly, in my judgment, linked their religious message to the legal and Constitutional rights that Americans possess: the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I have seen time and again pleas or demands by conservative Evangelical Leaders and the recent popes that their missionaries and religious communities be allowed to live, worship and otherwise practice the Christian faith in other more closed societies (E.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran). But it behooves us to practice what we preach and what we desire from other countries, not only because it is the morally right thing to do, but because it will help Christians who want access to other countries.

Finally, the Leaders who signed this document were, again, wise to emphasize the need for dialogue and action at the level of the local congregation or parish. The bi-lateral and multi-lateral high level dialogues at the national and international level between and among denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Southern Baptists [with Catholics terminated by a decision of the SBC], has borne much fruit, although there remain many tensions within and between some groups.

However, “the rubber [really] hits the road,” so to speak, when actual people, people who live in the same or nearby communities, come together face-to-face and begin to listen to and learn from each other; when people of different religious traditions actually interact with each other, come to understand each others’ ways, act together, and, perhaps, come to trust each other, healing may occur to all, so that we become more faithful, Jews, Christians, and Muslims (and those of other faith traditions also).

Please feel free to comment on this or any other of my blog posts.

A Cafeteria Catholic—Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia !

The Setting.
Conservative Catholics are very quick to accuse more “liberal” Catholics of picking and choosing to accept some, but not all, of Catholic teachings. Whether it is use of “artificial” birth control or not “attending” Mass every Sunday or questioning the Church’s position on same-sex behavior, liberals are dismissed as “cafeteria Catholics” choosing only those beliefs,  norms and behaviors that they want to.
Well, conservative Catholics are also cafeteria Catholics; they just select other beliefs and norms to reject. Look at the large number of conservative Catholics today who resist the Vatican and American Bishops teachings on foreign policy,  immigration and capital punishment! A very clear example of the latter is Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s clear-cut rejection of the Catholic teaching on Capital Punishment.
In an earlier post I remarked that the Church has always taught that the community / society has the right to defend itself against violent behavior that endangers individuals and the larger civic community, even the use of capital punishment under some extreme conditions,. Certainly since the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the “Church” has reaffirmed tradition, and with new insight into our contemporary situation, teaches that there is never justification for use of capital punishment in modern industrial and post-industrial societies. Why? The popes respond that there are other “less extreme” measures that accomplish the same goal: the protection of individuals and communities as a whole. One such measure is the penalty of Life in Prison Without Parole. This is what the Catechism says”

Today, in fact as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense of doing harm –-without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are extremely rare, if practically non-existent.”  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997 edition. # 2267 par 3. See also Pope John Paul, II: Evangelim Vitae  Par. 56).

Justice Antonin Scalia’s rejection of the Papal teaching on Capital Punishment.
Justice Scalia publicly rejected  Papal teaching on Capital Punishment in Chicago on 25 January 2002, and again in February 2002 during an open forum at Georgetown University as reported by the Pew Research Center in “Scalia Calls Death Penalty Constitutional, Not Immoral” (See also: “Scalia questions Catholic stance on death penalty” USA Today 02/04/2002 [no longer online]).
At the Chicago meeting, Justice Scalia said a number of things that showed his opposition to Church teaching. Speaking as a strict constitutionalist, Scalia said. “the constitutionality of the death penalty is not a difficult soul-wrenching question.
In response to a question asking whether current practice violates the Eighth Amendment, Justice Scalia responded, “Does it [the death penalty] constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The answer is No.”

As a Roman Catholic, Scalia disagrees with the recent teaching of the Catholic catechism and Evangelium Vitae “that the death penalty can only be imposed to protect rather than avenge,” and is therefore almost always wrong……. In fact Justice Scalia reacted to this statement by saying, This view [Canon 2267] is not a “position that Christianity has always maintained…There have Christian opponents of the death penalty just as there have been Christian pacifists, but neither of those positions has ever been  predominant in the church.

The Justice also said, “No authority that I know of denies the 2000-year-old tradition of the church approving capital punishment…I don’t see why there’s been a change.”

Especially in this response Justice Scalia tries to justify his rejection of the Pope’s teaching on the grounds that it is not old or traditional enough. Scalia is out of touch with the idea of the development [not wholesale change] of doctrine and that the Church has used an historically conscious method of doing social ethics at least since the late 1890s.
When asked whether or how his religious views came into play, Scalia, replied,

“I try mightily to prevent my religious views… from affecting my interpretation of the laws…. He continued, “The only one of my religious views that has anything to do  with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment –thou shalt not lie.

My observations on Justice Scalia as a “Cafeteria” Catholic.
I do not at all question the sincerity of Antonin Scalia’s Faith. He attended Georgetown University and later taught there as a visiting professor. He is the father of nine children. He is a “strict constructionist” and one of the most conservative justices on the Court. He is 73 years old.
I have no quarrel with Justice Scalia as a man. I do feel, however, that he is an excellent example of a conservative Cafeteria Catholic. At least two characteristics help account for this situation. First, he does not believe that the US Constitution is a “living document” but rather it is an “enduring” document that must be read and interpreted just as it was written, sort of like inerrantist fundamentalist Christians understand the Bible. Second, whether he uses the word or not, he has a “classist” understanding of Law and his faith. A classist understands the world as unchanging, with universal norms both in principle and application. This view tends to be very static. It sees change as a negative thing and, therefore, is very hesitant to take into account specific contemporary sociocultural realities or ongoing human experience as relevant to moral decision making. That is why he doesn’t like to see the “change” in the Church’s understanding  of the applicability of the practice of capital punishment.
My real point here is that conservative Catholics are  very often “Cafeteria Catholics.” The major difference between a liberal and a conservative “Cafeteria Catholic” is the particular part(s) of Catholic teaching they choose to ignore or reject.

Another Cafeteria Catholic I know
For example, I blogged, emailed and IMed a Catholic young man for months and months. He was the first person to ever comment on one of my blog posts. He is very intelligent, funny, and deep down he is very tender. He loves his family unconditionally. He loves the Catholic Church as he understands it. Unfortunately right now he is very angry and presents himself as very close-minded. He seldom heard anything I ever said (because it was too complicated) and once he began to call me a “heretic,” a “pretend Catholic” and things like that, I was miffed and felt like he really couldn’t / wouldn’t be a dialogue partner any longer. I must admit I broke off what began as a good friendship with sadness and hurt feelings.
But this man, who so defends  the “Church” in some areas, is a Cafeteria Catholic. In a previous blog he operated, he showed by what he wrote that he was unable to accept the Vatican and American Bishops’ positions on immigration and health care, or foreign policy.
So in the end, continually voicing, and screaming by Conservative Catholics that Vatican II,  liberal or progressive Catholics are unfaithful to the Church is to say the least, not helpful and will be one more thing to drive people out of the Church.
Comments are welcome here!!!

On Social Justice: Could Glen Beck be the next pope??

With all the attention given to the sex-abuse scandals, there has been little attention to the Church's long-standing teaching on social justice. However, the bishops' position on the immigration issue seems to have made it a "new" source of attack on the Church.

Recently FOX network commentator Glen Beck has attacked all those who use terms like "social justice" and "economic justice" as un-American; even accusing them of being, or being like, "socialists," "communists" or "fascists." More astounding yet, he aims his comments at Christens and specifically at the Catholic Church.

On 25 March Stephen Colbert used his cutting humor to seriously respond to Beck. You can see and hear Colbert's response on the Colbert Report. This segment is extremely funny, partly because Colbert is a Catholic and knows whereof he speaks. At the end of the show Stephen interviews Fr. James Martin, SJ who also has been attacked by Glen Beck.

At the end of the program, Colbert asks Fr. Martin if, in the unfortunate and most unlikely case, that Pope Benedict had to resign and Glen Beck were elected pope, what would he do. With a twinkle in his eye and a smile on his face Fr. Martin said, "I'd leave the Church just as Beck recommends."

At bottom, Glen Back is ignorant of, yet still opposed to  the Catholic understanding of the the Gospel message as currently and steadily proclaimed for the last 120 years by the popes. Anyone who wishes to get to the core of the "social justice" doctrine and ethic of the Catholic Church can begin with the following papal encyclicals:

• 1891     Leo XIII         Rerum Novarum
• 1931     Pius XI           Quadrageemus Anno
• 1961     John XXIII     Mater et Magistra
• 1963     John XXIII     Pacem et Terris
• 1967     Paul VI           Populorum Progressio
• 1981     JP II               Laborem Exercens
• 1987     JP II               Sollicitudo Rei Socialis
• 1991     JP II               Centesimus Annus
• 2009     Ben XVI         Caritas in Veritate

See also the Vatican II documents (passim) especially:

• Dignitas Humanae
• Gaudium et Spes

The above links will take you to the Vatican website (English versions). There are "brief versions" on the Vatican website as well as a few commentaries. Commentaries from other sources vary in their interpretation of the documents. Be careful. And know well the source of who makes the postings!!

For the serious person (Catholic or non-Catholic) who wishes to understand the common themes of social justice in the Catholic tradition, it is important to be familiar with the entire social justice teaching of the Church. Glen Beck is most certainly not one of them.

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."