Overemphasizing Pope Harms the Church, Says Commonweal Editor

Pope Francis

Pope Francis’ widespread popularity seems to be good news for the Catholic Church, gained in part by his welcoming words and actions towards LGBT people and their allies. Yet, one leading Catholic observer has criticized this intense focus on the papacy as harmful to the Church.

Paul Baumann, the editor of Commonweal, wrote an article for Slate titled, “The Public Pope: Why the intense fascination paid to Pope Francis – or any pope – isn’t good for the Catholic Church.” Baumann acknowledges the upsides to modern popes, gaining media coverage and secular attention in a world otherwise skeptical of religion. The allure of Pope Francis, who is preaching God’s love in new ways, is a prime example. However, even with these positives, the author explains:

“Whatever people think Pope Francis is offering, he is no magician; he can’t alter the course of secular history or bridge the church’s deepening ideological divisions simply by asserting what in truth are the papacy’s rather anemic powers. In this light, the inordinate attention paid to the papacy, while perhaps good for business, is not good for the church. Why not? Because it encourages the illusion that what ails the church can be cured by one man, especially by a new man.”

Baumann points to three popes to make his point about the weakness of the papacy: St. Peter, a “man of legendary weakness” who denied Jesus three times, John Paul II, a “media superstar” who failed to effectively deal with clergy sexual abuse, and Benedict XVI, a “man of towering intellect…overmastered by palace intrigue within the Vatican.”  There are surely more examples of papal failings. Instead of fixating on popes though, Baumann wants to shift attention back to Catholics at large who are both the problem and solution:

“The truth is that the more the world flatters the Catholic Church by fixating on the papacy—and the more the internal Catholic conversation is monopolized by speculation about the intentions of one man—the less likely it is that the church will succeed in moving beyond the confusions and conflicts that have preoccupied it since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). The church desperately needs to reclaim its cultural and spiritual equilibrium; it must find a density and richness of worship and mission and a renewed public presence, which far transcend mere loyalty to the pope.”

The modern papacy, in Baumann’s estimation, is overly involved in the affairs of the global Catholic Church. Vatican meddling in the most local of cases has ‘infantilized’ bishops and suppressed theological discourse. The pope no longer exists as a source of unity, but has become a disciplinarian along ideological lines. This has all caused great harm to the Church. Baumann states:

“As in any heavily top-down organization, local initiatives fail to gain a foothold, or fizzle out for lack of dynamic leadership, and apathy prevails in the pews. Institutional gridlock and paralysis have become the norm. Seminaries are empty, and clerical talent is thin on the ground.”

There is also the reality of a divided Church, and Baumann mentions the topics of homosexuality and marriage equality among the laundry list of topics that provoke “mind-numbingly familiar” debates. Vatican II’s documents proved to be ambiguous, and even contradictory, allowing for the conservative/liberal divides to develop without any way means of conflict resolution:

“The persistent nature of such divisions reminds us that Catholics must find a way to live with and through their ongoing disputes and, most important, to live with one another. Perhaps this is precisely what Pope Francis is trying to tell Catholics in his efforts to shift the focus: away from Rome and back to the poor and afflicted, away from the question of who is living in the papal apartments to who is breaking bread with whom in more modest surroundings, and away—most winningly—from the popemobile to a used Renault.

“Lex orandi, lex credendi is one of the church’s most venerable teachings. Roughly translated, it means that the church’s worship determines its theology…Whatever their ideological disagreements, Catholics will find unity, and a less anachronistic relationship with the papacy, in practicing their faith together—or they will not find unity at all. That may mean that the same-sex couple in the pew next to you will provide a more faithful example of Christian witness than you might now imagine possible. Or perhaps the ardent piety of a Latin Mass enthusiast will lead you to reconsider parts of the church’s tradition you have long dismissed as irrelevant and sterile. In any event, the church’s unity and renewed vitality will be—must be—a gift that the faithful bring to the pope, and not the other way around.”

The history of LGBT advocacy within the Church confirms Baumann’s claims that it is the People of God who create change and build up a better Church, not necessarily the pope or the Vatican. While Pope Francis’ comments like “Who am I to judge?” are welcome, they are so positively received because thousands of LGBT Catholics, parents, friends, nuns and priests, and allies have committed decades to creating LGBT-positive parishes and communities. Through painstaking conversations, workshops, and pushing the boundaries bit by bit, LGBT advocates have fostered a Church more welcoming of all, even if this work is less media-friendly than papal pronouncements.

All that said, anti-gay laws are on the rise internationally, leading to discrimination and violence in nations like Uganda, India, and Russia. The firing of LGBT church workers, and even those who just support equal rights, is on the rise in the United States. Non-discrimination protections that include sexual orientation and gender identity are still not universal, and neither is marriage equality. While I join many in celebrating Pope Francis after his first year, and affirm Equally Blessed’s statement that his LGBT-positive actions are like ‘rain on parched land,’ we must remember there is much work we must do, and that change emerges up from the People of God, not down from the pope.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

We Are God’s Unlikely Choice

Periodically in Lent, Bondings 2.0 will feature reflections by two New Ways Ministry staff members:  Matthew Myers, Associate Director, and Sister Jeannine Gramick, Co-Founder. The liturgical readings for the Fourth Sunday of Lent are: 1 Samuel 16: 1, 6-7, 10-13; Psalm 23:1-6; Ephesians 5:8-14; John 9:1-41.

King David by Marc Chagall

God makes unlikely choices.  If in doubt, these Lenten readings confirm it.

In the first reading, Samuel was sent by God to Bethlehem to anoint one of Jesse’s sons as king.  God instructed Samuel to disregard what he would normally look for in a king – strength, lofty stature, and regal appearance.  Instead, God looked into the heart of each of Jesse’s sons and told Samuel to anoint the youngest son, a shepherd named David.  Samuel, Jesse, and David were probably shocked by this improbable selection – but this choice illustrated God’s ability to work through an unlikely person.

In the Letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul uses the light/dark imagery to emphasize that we are adopted sons and daughters of God.  In our own ways, each of us is an incredibly poor choice by God to “produce every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth.”  We are far too talented at producing not-so-good fruits on our own, yet God nonetheless adopts through baptism and slowly molds us into children of light capable of remarkable goodness.  God chooses us – unlikely choices all – to build the reign of justice and love in our own ways.

The Gospel parable of the blind man is often interpreted as a comparison between physical sight and spiritual awareness.  As the blind man regained his physical sight, he came to know and worship Jesus as the Messiah.  There is nothing wrong with this interpretation, but perhaps we can change one word in the Gospel to reveal a new meaning for us:

“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born gay?”

Many LGBT people and their parents have asked similar questions.  LGBT folks ask themselves, “Why did God make me this way? Did I do something wrong or not try hard enough?”  Parents often ask, “What did I do wrong in raising my child?  Is it my fault?”

However, Jesus gives an incredibly affirming reply to all these questions:  “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.”  Jesus responds that some people are created a bit differently on purpose so that God’s love can be made manifest through them in an equally unique way.  God gives LGBT people, an often marginalized and maligned group, the opportunity to teach the rest of humankind about self-acceptance, just relationships, and the unimaginable power and durability of love.  God makes unlikely choices.

An interesting side-note:  the Pharisees in the parable turned the man’s blindness into a theological problem.  The Pharisees wonder who was responsible for God’s punishment upon the blind man.  But they never ask how God’s love might be revealed through the blind man – how his difference can enrich the community and how his presence might be an experience of God to others.  Perhaps this is a problem among some Catholic leaders – they have turned sexual orientation and gender identity into theological problems that must be solved.  However, Jesus invites us to understand LGBT identities as gifts to be accepted and appreciated within our church.

I recently heard a new song entitled, “With Every Act of Love” by Jason Gray, which fits so well with today’s scriptural message.  Gray sings, “God put a million, million doors in the world for his love to walk through, and one of those doors is you.”  God makes many unlikely choices – you and me among them.  May we rejoice in the opportunity to be doors for God’s love in our world today.

–Matthew Myers, New Ways Ministry

 

Hawaii Catholic Schools Add Tougher Morality Clause to Teacher Contracts

Catholics schools in Hawaii have revised the contract for teachers, adding an an amplified morality clause that explicitly names offenses for which teachers can be fired, including homosexual activity . This announcement comes a little over a week after the Cincinnati Archdiocese announced similar changes in their contract for Catholic school teachers.

According to the Civil Beat, the new contract affects educators at three dozen parochial schools and includes prohibitions against “homosexual activity” and “same sex unions,” along with several other selectively enforced teachings relating to sexuality. Notably, “unmarried cohabitation” is included. Civil Beat reports further:

” ‘The school expressly reserves the right to terminate the employment of any Teacher, who by word or example, denies the teachings or authority of the Church, or whose personal life or conduct is, based on Catholic teaching, immoral,’ says a portion of the contract..

“Schools have not yet distributed the contracts to teachers, but the documents will apply to all teachers working in parochial schools operated by the Diocese of Honolulu, which covers the entire state. A few private Catholic schools are not parochial schools.”

Both full- and part-time educators will need to sign this new contract annually, beginning next year. Except for a handful of religious-order run schools, the contract will affect every Catholic school in the state. Dioocese of Honolulu Schools’ Superintendent Michael Rockers claimed there was nothing new in the contracts and attempted to tie teachers to ministry, which has been a common tactic to defend discriminatory firings as a matter of religious liberty.

Most troubling are additional comments by Rockers, noted by Civil Beat:

“[Rockers] said the ultimate goal is to provide positive role models for students and that if a teacher’s homosexuality were made public it would negatively affect the children.

” ‘We want to be authentic about what our moral teaching is,’ he said. ‘We’re trying to be pastoral about this and centered on what’s best for the students.’ “

Bishop Larry Silva

While the diocesan schools’ office denies this new contract is a reaction to the state’s passage of marriage equality last November, it is hard to see it as anything but a reaction to advancing LGBT equality. It is part of an increasingly punitive reaction by anti-LGBT Catholic leaders who, recognizing they have lost the civil rights struggle, are trying to punish those who are LGBT or their allies. There have been instances of a Virginia priest withholding funds raised by the Boy Scout troop he expelled from their parish, and a British bishop who recently raised the issue of denying Communion to legislators who voted for marriage equality.

Closer to Hawaii, Bishop Larry Silva is on record linking marriage equality to incest, polygamy, and juvenile suicide, as well as defending ‘just discrimination.’  It is not surprising that he would follow the Archdiocese of Cincinnati’s decision to add an enhanced morality clause targeting homosexuality and same-gender marriage. Cincinnati’s Catholic schools proposed novel ideas, legally speaking, by more closely tying teachers to ministerial roles,  and adding ‘public support’ of any banned activities as a reason for termination.

In that first instance, I voiced my hope that it would not be adapted by other dioceses and that fairer minds would prevail. It appears Silva will instead continue harming LGBT equality Catholic education, and the Hawaii Church, instead of following Pope Francis’ lead of strengthening communities and welcoming all. If these selectively-targeted morality clauses spread, Catholic schools must be ready to sacrifice talented faculty, committed families, and the wide support from the majority of Catholics supportive of LGBT justice.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

In England, Bishop Would Deny Communion & Priest Admits to Same-Gender Marriage

Bishop Philip Egan

Two incidents made headlines in the UK this week, which stress the reality that even in places where there is legal recognition of marriage equality, the Catholic Church’s need for renewal is still great.

Communion Controversy

Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth told a conservative Catholic website that Communion should be denied to Catholic members of Parliament who supported England’s recent passage of marriage equality and called it an “act of mercy.” The Tablet reports Egan told the interviewer:

” ‘When people are not in communion with the Catholic Church … in terms of the teachings of the Church on marriage and family life – they are voting in favour of same-sex marriage – then they shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion….I personally would be in favour of saying that somebody should not be receiving communion.’ “

He also added that any action should be carried out in consultation with the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. A Conference spokesperson denied that the country’s bishops would follow Egan’s suggestion and discuss the issue.

Meanwhile, legislators from both leading parties criticized Egan and there was no support for the bishop. Marriage equality was supported by 47 of 82 Catholic members of parliament last year. Conservative MP Conor Burns called Egan’s statement a “tragedy” and said “this bishop appears not to have noticed that we have a new gentle shepherd preaching a Christ-like message of inclusivity, love, tolerance, and forgiveness” in reference to Pope Francis. Even MPs who voted against equal marriage rights, like Labour’s Stephen Pound, criticized Egan’s position as “wholly disproportionate.”

Fr. Donald Minchew

Priest’s Marriage

The Tablet also reported that a Catholic priest has been suspended from ministry after it was revealed he had entered into a civil partnership with a man several years ago. Fr. Donald Minchew was part of the Ordinariate, which caters to converts from the Anglican Church, and entered a civil union with Mustajab Hussain in 2008 while still in his former position with the Church of England. The article reports further:

“Fr. Minchew, 66, told The Mail on Sunday his civil partnership to Mr Hussain, 32, was ‘the only way I could see of getting him in the country’, adding that he and Mr Hussain had not seen each other for ‘donkey’s years’.”

Hussain is a Pakistani immigrant who is married. He initially stated the civil union was a formality to bypass immigration laws, but later suggested he and Fr. Minchew had been in a romantic relationship. Both men are now facing charges for breaking immigration laws.

In both incidents, the hierarchy’s opposition to marriage equality remains harmfully influential. Bishop Egan’s proposal to deny Communion to MPs months after marriage equality was legalized is not unique. There are other instances where Catholic leaders have sought to punish those supporting LGBT rights, like a priest in Virginia who kept Boy Scout funds after the national organization allowed openly gay scouts.

As for Fr. Minchew, it is a less clear situation given the contradictory accounts and lack of details in media reports. However, priest’s suspension is, at some level, likely related to entering a same-gender partnership, and he might not have been treated similarly had he entered marriage with a woman. Prayers are needed for all involved in what seems to be a troubling situation.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Christian Voices Ask Pope Francis for More on LGBT Inclusion

Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson

Pope Francis has received accolades for attempting to build a more inclusive Catholic culture, including his welcome of LGBT people, and these have come from Protestant, as well as Catholic believers. Still, two Protestant voices are asking the pope to do more in his second year to reverse homophobia and transphobia in the Church.

Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson, who was the first gay bishop consecrated in his church, wrote an open letter to Pope Francis in The Daily Beast about how to move forward on LGBT issues. Acknowledging his appreciation for what Pope Francis has done, especially the “Who am I to judge?” remark, Robinson notes that this first year has been marked by charity. But justice, the overturning of systemic problems, must always accompany charity. He continues:

“If Pope Francis is to be believed in all the kindly pronouncements of his first year (and I do), his good tone should be followed by the tough work of changing the systems of belief, doctrine and religious practice which perpetuate the victimization of those he seeks to serve. It is a small step forward to say of homosexuals, ‘Who am I to judge?’  Yet the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that homosexuals are ‘intrinsically disordered.’  Not a lot of wriggle room in that, is there?  That judgment and teaching about LGBT people is the basis for discrimination, rejection and violence the world over.”

However, Robinson is realistic about Pope Francis’ power, and he acknowledges that a systemic overhaul of the Church’s professed sexual ethics is a tall order. He writes:

“There will be resistance to any change, much less the kind of change to which Francis’s humble ways point.  Over the years, we have learned what happens to people who are just too good for us!  But this pope seems to know that sacrifice is part of the deal of living with God.

“I hope this pope keeps surprising and delighting us, sitting a boy in his papal chair and allegedly sneaking out of the Vatican at night to work with the homeless!  I hope he continues to show us the mind of Christ by his acts of humility and compassion. I pray that he persists in eschewing luxury and pretension. And I pray that he will stay close to the Son of God he is supposed to represent on earth, despite the institution’s every effort to tame their new leader and rob him of his pizazz.”

Elsewhere, Bill Tammeus, a Presbyterian Elder, echoes Robinson’s sentiments in his column at the National Catholic Reporter. Pope Francis is not judging gay people, but what about the pesky problem of doctrine? Tammeus writes:

“So far, although he suggested he’s in no position to judge someone who might be gay, he’s done nothing we know of to repeal of Section 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says that ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies’ are ‘objectively disordered.’

“There is, of course, still some debate even among scientists about the causes of homosexuality, but there’s now almost no doubt — save among some people who distort the Bible — that being gay is not a choice. The church should be in the forefront of welcoming all people into the embrace of the Gospel of Jesus Christ — and ‘all’ is a pretty inclusive term. Calling someone’s sexual orientation ‘objectively disordered’ fails that test.”

Finally, John Gallagher lists five changes Pope Francis could make in year two for Queerty that “don’t challenge Church teaching on the nature of homosexuality or its opposition to marriage equality. All they do is acknowledge that LGBT people should be treated with respect, an idea that is clearly in keeping with the pope’s pastoral approach.”

The changes he suggests are as follows: tell Catholic schools to stop picking on gay and lesbian teachers; let priests know that ‘Who am I to judge?’ isn’t just for the pope; come out in favor of nondiscrimination laws; reprimand Nigeria’s bishops who supported a brutal anti-gay law; end the rhetoric equating pedophilia and gayness. You can read commentaries on each suggestion here.

Though Pope Francis may not  change doctrinal teachings on homosexuality any time soon, he has surprised the world often with his words and deeds. It will be interesting to see how year two shapes up on LGBT issues.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Related Articles

Washington Blade, “LGBT Catholics Reflect on First Year of Francis Papacy“

Uganda’s Bishops Remain Quiet on Anti-Gay Law; Pope Francis Will Not Visit There

Pope Francis

More than a month after Uganda’s president signed an infamous anti-gay law, that nation’s bishops still remain silent on the controversial legislation which has received international condemnation. In this same period, it was announced that Pope Francis will not visit Uganda next fall, as had been discussed, causing speculation about whether this cancellation is related to the anti-gay law.

Initially, the Ugandan [Catholic] Episcopal Conference’s head announced the bishops would study the new law before commenting. America magazine now reports any public remarks, especially a condemnation, seems unlikely. The magazine cites two priests with knowledge of the situation:

“An informed Ugandan priest, meanwhile, suggested the bishops had opted to keep ‘safe’ and silent over the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act.

” ‘I am not aware that there has been an official statement … nor that there should be,’ said Msgr. John Wynand Katende, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Kampala, Uganda’s capital…

“The same day, a Catholic priest based in Uganda told CNS that, to his knowledge, the bishops would not officially be commenting on the contentious new law.

” ‘The bishops, to my knowledge, opted to keep safe off the issue, saying that they were not given the original text. But now … they have said that the law should not be politicized,’ the priest said on condition of anonymity.”

However, the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni, stated that Catholic bishops have privately expressed their support for the law and there is a well-document record of religious leaders supporting the anti-gay law.

Hundreds have urged the pope to condemn such laws through the #PopeSpeakOut campaign, and Catholics outside Uganda have been vocal in their defense of LGBT people’s lives. However, Pope Francis has remained quiet while Uganda and other nations have passed laws criminalizing homosexuality and creating stiff penalties for LGBT people. It is now confirmed the pope will not travel to Uganda in October for celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of the Ugandan Martyr’s canonizations, according to the Ugandan newspaper Daily Monitor. Pope Francis’ global popularity resounds in Africa as well, with one Kenyan columnist urging Africans to “vote with the Pope” on gay rights:

“The revolutionary bishop from Argentina took a sledgehammer to homophobes when he asked – ‘who am I to judge?’ Those simple, if venerable five words, demolished millennia of official hatred for homosexuals in the Church that Saint Peter built…

“To the Jesuit Pope, gays should be welcomed, loved, and accepted. That’s why Pope Francis is a godsend. I’ve watched with dismay – and utter disbelief – as some states in Africa descend into an orgy of homophobia…Rogue politicians and bigoted clergymen whip up hapless followers with anti-gay propaganda…

“Pope Francis wasn’t only criticising longstanding Church doctrine. The Pope’s message was a sharp rebuke to unprincipled politicians and leaders like Mr Museveni. It’s leaders like Mr Museveni who use ‘wedge’ hot-button issues like sexuality, mini-skirts, abortion, or fake attacks on cultural imperialism to cling to power…Why all the vitriol and anger against gays who’ve never done a thing to you? I end where I started…Let’s vote with the Pope on gays – and embrace them.”

It is unclear whether Pope Francis cancelled this trip or declined the invitation in the first place. What is clear is this provided an opportunity for Pope Francis to condemn clearly laws which violate the dignity and well-being of LGBT people and call upon bishops around the world to raise their voices as well.  However, perhaps he declined to visit the country because he did not want to seem to be approving of the new law.  He is already seen as a gay-positive influence in the Church and in the world. It is time for Pope Francis to speak out clearly and forcefully against Uganda’s law, and other similar anti-gay laws around the globe.  He can save lives.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Vice President Biden, Hobby Lobby, and a Religious Liberty Round-Up

Vice President Joe Biden at the Human Rights Campaign gala

This week Vice President Joe Biden called for a renewed legislative push to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Action (ENDA), just as the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. These events, and others in the country, are the result of an ongoing debate in America about religious liberty. This debate is important for Catholic LGBT advocates because judicial rulings and legislative developments on seemingly unrelated matters do impact the lives of LGBT people. Below are summaries about several religious liberty issues, and you can read more with the provided links.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Vice President Biden, a Catholic, robustly criticized Congress’ failure to pass ENDA at the Human Rights Campaign’s gala last Saturday. ENDA would provide nationwide employment protections for people based upon their sexual orientation and gender identity, but failed in the House of Representatives after passing the Senate in 2013.  The Advocate reported on his speech to the HRC crowd:

” ‘It’s close to barbaric,’ Biden said of it still being legal to fire someone for being gay or lesbian. ‘Pass ENDA now,’ he demanded of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, calling it ‘outrageous we’re even debating this.’ …

” ‘The single most basic of all human rights is the right to decide who you love, it is the single basic building block…Hate can never never be defended because it’s a so-called “cultural norm.” I’ve had it up to here with cultural norms.’ “

The Catholic bishops have been prominently opposed to ENDA and similar legislation, even threatening to scuttle immigration reform because LGBT protections were included in that bill.

Hobby Lobby Lawsuit

While the Hobby Lobby lawsuit concerns private businesses and healthcare coverage, the plaintiffs are arguing from the vantage point of religious liberty. Hobby Lobby’s Christian owners want to be exempt from providing birth control coverage to employees as part of the company’s health insurance, on the grounds that birth control violates their religious belief. The New York Times editorialized:

“These companies are not religious organizations, nor are they affiliated with religious organizations. But the owners say they are victims of an assault on religious liberty because they personally disapprove of certain contraceptives. They are wrong, and the Supreme Court’s task is to issue a decisive ruling saying so. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the owners trying to impose their religious beliefs on thousands of employees.

“The legal question is whether the contraception coverage rule violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which says government may not ‘substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion’ unless the burden is necessary to further a ‘compelling government interest’ and does so by ‘the least restrictive means.’ …

“If there is a Supreme Court decision in favor of these businesses, the ripple effect could be enormous. One immediate result would be to encourage other companies to seek exemptions from other health care needs, like blood transfusions, psychiatric care, vaccinations or anesthesia. It could also encourage toxic measures like the one vetoed last month by Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona that would have given businesses and individuals a broad right to deny services to same-sex couples in the name of religion. The Supreme Court cannot go there.”

The eventual ruling in this case could have far reaching impacts on the lives of LGBT people. Catholic schools and parishes have cited religious liberty arguments to justify firing LGBT people, or even those who simply support equal rights. You can read these cases in the ‘Employment Issues‘ category to the right.

Third Way

While it is clear that ENDA would not infringe upon religious liberty, this has still been a powerful talking point by anti-LGBT activists to stall progress. While every state which has passed marriage equality included strong religious liberty protections in the laws, the Catholic bishops and anti-LGBT activists have continued to pick the religious liberty fight. Hopefully, more Catholics in politics and policymaking will speak out like the vice president and Representative Louis Ruiz of Kansas who called that state’s non-discrimination bill a “no-brainer.”

Michael Peppard, a theology professor at Fordham University, writes in the Washington Post about the false cries of “religious liberty”:

“But U.S. history, which juxtaposes firm anti-discrimination laws and a robust religious liberty tradition, has shown that the price of citizenship is drawing distinctions: finding footholds on supposedly slippery slopes…

“Asking and answering these questions has been essential to Americans’ governance. Some civil rights are limited; some religious consciences are infringed. We may or may not decide, in the end, that baking a cake and photographing a wedding are sufficiently different interactions with the event to suggest anti-discrimination protections for one and conscience protections for the other. But the process of making such decisions is worth the effort.

Doing so need not entail an apocalyptic war of religion vs. state-sponsored secularism. Rather, we would continue to tinker with a delicate balance. In terms of religious pluralism, the American experiment remains unique, with more diversity in Washington or New York — or even just one of its wards or boroughs — than in most countries. Fashioning social order out of such variety is not a process to be taken for granted. The more civil rights expand and deepen, the more carefully responsibilities must be negotiated and articulated. E pluribus unum is ever fragile.

“Drawing distinctions to maintain a precise balance of religious conscience protections and publicly accommodated civil rights is neither a sign of fastidious hairsplitting nor a distraction from prophetically proclaimed truths on either side. Rather, it is necessary to preserve and perfect our experiment in diversity.”

And what about Catholics like the bishops who have championed the religious liberty cause, claiming persecution because LGBT rights are advancing. Michael Sean Winters writes in the National Catholic Reporter about Peppard’s call for nuance and dialogue . Winters says the need to understand that this argument is not a battle, but an adjudication of law is all the more pressing as the religious liberty debate on a national level shifts from healthcare to LGBT rights.

“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has a real dilemma facing them: They have chosen to make domestic religious liberty a matter of intense focus. We have had two ‘Fortnights for Freedom,’ testimony before Congress, countless essentially political campaigns launched from the pulpits and in church bulletins. Very little effort has been made to even recognize the good faith of those who disagree with us. The whole effort has been, shall we say, very un-Francis…as the debate on religious liberty seems likely to shift to gay rights, I fear that our Church will make itself look like a paragon of intolerance in the coming months…We must resist, on Gospel grounds, the prospect of religious liberty becoming an anti-gay fight…

“We are Catholics…Our Catholic identity, in a pluralistic culture, should not become a battering ram with which we hit others over the head. It should not be a spur to ideological purity. In our Church’s long history, we see, instead, countless saints who evidenced that moral friction that proved a bump for the mockers and haters and killers. I hope in the coming months, our bishops will resist turning our understandable and laudable concern for religious liberty into a kind of anti-gay campaign. We all deserve better.”

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

QUOTE TO NOTE: Pope Francis on Overcoming Prejudice

At the Angelus service at the Vatican on Sunday, March 23rd, Pope Francis spoke eloquently about overcoming prejudice.  His words will surely ring loudly for those who work for LGBT equality.  Thanks to Martin Pendergast in England for alerting me to this text in English.  You can read an English-language news story of the talk here. You can read the entire text in Italian here.  You can view a video of the talk here.  The following are excerpts relevant to the topic of prejudice:

“Today’s Gospel presents us with the meeting between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in [the Samaritan town of] Sychar near an ancient well where the woman had come to draw water. Jesus found himself seated at the well that day “tired from his journey” (John 4:6). He immediately says: “Give me to drink” (4:7). In this way he overcomes the barriers of hostility that existed between Jews and Samaritans and the mentality of prejudiced mentality toward women. Jesus’ simple request is the beginning of a frank dialogue through which, with great delicacy, he enters into the interior world of a person to whom, according to the social norms, he should not have even spoken a word.But Jesus does it! Jesus is not afraid. Jesus, when he sees a person, goes forward, because he loves. He loves us all. Prejudice does not hinder his contact with a person. Jesus places the person before his [the person’s] situation, not judging him but making him feel appreciated, recognized and in this way awakens in him the desire to move beyond his daily routine. . . .

“The Gospel tells us that the disciples were astonished that their Master spoke with that woman. But the Lord is greater than prejudices; this is why he was not afraid to engage with the Samaritan woman. Mercy is greater than prejudice. This we must learn well! Mercy is greater than prejudice, and Jesus is very merciful, very! . . . .

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

Catholic League’s Publicity Stunt Helps No One, Harms Many

Parishioners from St. Francis Xavier in New York City march in the 2013 Pride Parade.

St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York drew fire a week ago for excluding LGBT organizations from marching. These actions led many to skip the parades, and corporate sponsors, including the brewers of Guinness, withdrew their support. In response to the corporate actions, Bill Donohue of the Catholic Leaguefor Civil and Religious Rights  launched a week-long publicity stunt attacking those who stood up for LGBT inclusion in the parade controversies.

Initially, Donohue had called for a boycott of Guinness, Sam Adams, and Heineken, all who had withdrawn St. Patrick’s Day parade support. According to Time, Donohue called the LGBT groups who wanted to march in St. Patrick’s Day parades “bullies.” Donohue escalated the hysteria when he declared his intent to march in New York’s Pride parade under a banner which would say, “Straight is Great.”  With each day, new headlines broke on this story: GLAAD president Sarah Kate Ellis invited Donohue to march with her during Pride, NYC Pride announced it would welcome the Catholic League to the 2014 March, and, finally, Donohue announced he would not be marching after all.

Of this final news, Jamie Manson of the National Catholic Reporter writes:

“File this one under, ‘Why am I not surprised?’…

“In a statement on Saturday, Donohue put his cards on the table, admitting that the purpose of his request “was to see just how far they would go without forcing me to abide by their rules.”

“Donohue was attempting to draw a parallel between the Pride March and the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade, which continues to ban gay and lesbian organizations from participating.

“But this latest publicity stunt backfired on him when, perhaps to his surprise, Pride organizers warmly welcomed him.

“Looking for a way out of his parade charade, Donohue complained that the Pride March would require him to attend a mandatory information and safety session. The session, which is meant to ensure a smooth and safe event, is a prerequisite for all participating organizations.

“In an particularly juvenile move, Donohue characterized the safety training sessions as ‘gay training sessions.’ “

The entire situation would be comical if not so toxic. Donohue’s public history is rabidly anti-LGBT. More than merely opposing marriage equality or nondiscrimination rights, he makes vile insinuations about gay and transgender people, as he pays no attention to Catholic teachings about respect and human dignity. And for all this, The New Civil Rights Movement reports he makes more than $400,000 annually.

Unfortunately, the outlandish public persona of Bill Donohue is appealing to some in the media, and the actions of this one man are greatly amplified. Even though, in this instance, it was wildly apparent his plan backfired, his actions hindered efforts to promote understanding of LGBT people in the Church. Worse, it perpetuates an idea that Bill Donohue’s vitriolic anti-gay behavior represents the Catholic community when, in reality, most American Catholics support LGBT people and their full inclusion into society.

Next time Bill Donohue makes a fuss, it would be best for the media to leave him alone

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

QUOTE TO NOTE: On the Passing of Fred Phelps

Fred Phelps, the founder of the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church, died this past week.   The National Catholic Reporter posted an article on Phelps’ history, which began in Topeka, Kansas, and then gained a national profile.

LGBT religious groups responded to his demise with compassion for the human sorrow that death brings and with calls to end the religiously-based anti-gay rhetoric that Phelps personified.  On the CNN Religion Blog, Jim Smith, DignityUSA‘s Associate Director, had this to say:

“There is a sadness as deep as the Grand Canyon over the harm that he has unleashed in our country, a sadness that can’t be quantified. But that still doesn’t mean I delight in his death. I’d delight in the end of the Westboro [Baptist Church] mission.”

To Smith’s sentiments, we say, “Amen!”

Fred Phelps

Taking a different perspective was a Kansas Catholic Church official,  who claimed that Phelps’ extremism harmed people who oppose marriage equality and other pro-LGBT issues. Jacksonville.com reported :

“Michael Schuttloffel, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, said Phelps and his congregation still represent ‘an easy device’ for gay-marriage supporters to “short-circuit the conversation” on that and related issues in recent years.

” ‘People were justifiably, appropriately outraged by the things that they did,’ Schuttloffel said of Phelps and his church. ‘As soon as someone, then, is able to tar you as being related to them or thinking the same way as them, right away you’re starting behind the eight ball.’

So sad that Mr. Schuttloffel turned this occasion into a statement about marriage.  So sad that a Catholic official does not recognize the pain and harm that Phleps caused so many.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry