Pope Francis’ Negative Rhetoric Begins to Be Echoed Around the Globe

By Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry, September 21, 2016

On Bondings 2.0, we often report on the way that Pope Francis’ positive approach to LGBT issues is affecting the way that bishops around the world have been speaking about such topics.  An article on Crux, however, tells an opposite story: that Pope Francis’ negative comments about “gender theory” and “ideological colonization” are encouraging bishops around the globe to speak similarly when marriage equality or transgender rights are discussed.

Reporter Inés San Martin looked at examples of bishops’ statements coming from Colombia, Mexico, and Spain to make the case that the pope’s ideas about gender are taking root in episcopal discourse.

Cardinal Rubén Salazar Gómez

In Colombia, Cardinal Rubén Salazar Gómez of Bogota and Archbishop Ettore Balestrero, the papal envoy to that nation, have recently protested the revision of school textbooks which will include discussions of  gender identity, sexual orientation, and LGBT parenting.  Salazar’s rhetoric closely echoes statements by Pope Francis:

“ ‘We reject the implementation of gender ideology in the Colombian education, because it’s a destructive ideology, [it] destroys the human being, taking away its fundamental principle of the complementary relationship between man and woman,’ Salazar said.

“The cardinal also said that the Church respects people with a different sexual orientation, and that as an institution it’s looking for constant opportunities for dialogue.

“ ‘Individual rights can’t go against the rights of the community,’ Salazar said. ‘What we need to accomplish is a deep respect of everyone without the imposition of ideologies.’ “

(As an aside, I would be very interested in knowing what opportunities for dialogue the cardinal seeks.  It would seem that discussing the new textbook revisions with LGBT people and with the people who are supporting the changes would be an ideal opportunity for dialogue.  It makes one wonder why he has not done so.)

The efforts of the churchmen were successful.  According to the news article:

‘The cardinal, together with the papal envoy in the country, Archbishop Ettore Balestrero, met with president Santos and Parody the day after the rally. Soon after their meeting, the president said in a press conference that the country had no intention of promoting gender ideology, and promised the textbooks would be re-written.’

Cardinal José Francisco Robles

In Mexico, where marriage equality is currently an issue of national debate, Cardinal José Francisco Robles of Guadalajara, who is also president of the nation’s bishops’ conference, has also used Pope Francis’ concept of “gender ideology” to bolster opposition to the proposed federal law.  Robles stated:

“The future of humanity is played in marriage and the natural family is formed by a heterosexual couple.

“The proliferation of the mentality of gender ideology moves with a flag of acceptance, promoting the values of diversity and non-discrimination, but it denies the natural reciprocity between a man and a woman.”

Bishop Demetrio Fernandez

The example from Spain concerns remarks made by  Bishop Demetrio Fernandez in opposition to a proposed law which would criminalize hate speech against LGBT people.  Fernandez called the proposed law “an attack on religious freedom and freedom of conscience.”  In a later interview, he strongly echoed what are probably the harshest language Pope Francis has used to discuss an LGBT topic.  In an interview, the pontiff compared gender theory to nuclear arms. Fernandez statement echoing this metaphor is:

“[G]ender ideology is an atomic bomb that wants to destroy Catholic doctrine, the image of God in man, and the image of God the Creator.”

It is definitely disturbing that bishops are echoing the pope’s negative language on these topics.  More disturbing, though, is the fact that the pope’s and these bishops’ words reveal an immense lack of information on gender and transgender people.  For instance, the Crux article quotes Pope Francis as saying “gender theory is an error of the human mind that leads to so much confusion,”  and that this view of gender is one reason why “the family is under attack.”

If the pope and bishops would listen to LGBT people’s experience, they could understand that what they claim is “theory” and “ideology” is actually a very human and holy phenomenon.  They would also realize that LGBT advocates are not attacking anything, but just trying to help people live whole and full lives. Far from attacking the family, the experience of families with LGBT members shows that acceptance of these realities can promote family harmony, unity, and strength.  LGBT people are not enemies of the church, but faithful members who can help it grow.  Since LGBT people’s experiences are lived realities, it seems that the only people promoting “theory” and “ideology” in these discussions are the those who insist that gender binaries are set in stone.

 

                                                                                                                           *     *     *     *     *    *

Related posts:

Bondings 2.0: “Putting Pope Francis’ “Ideology of Gender” Comments in Context”

Bondings 2.0:  “Pope Francis’ Remarks on Gender in Schools Deemed Ambiguous, Out of Touch”

Bondings 2.0:  “Pope’s Lament About Children and Gender Identity Reveals Serious Blind Spot”

 

Czech Bishop Speaks Out Against LGB Parents, Needs of Czech Orphans Overlooked

By Glen Bradley, New Ways Ministry, September 17, 2016

In response to the Czech Republic’s court decision to affirm the adoption rights of an individual in a same-gender partnership, Bishop Vaclav Maly—chairman of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Czech Bishops’ Conference—stated:

Bishop Vaclav Maly

“The model of the family, constituted by a man and a woman, has been proved over thousands of years and shown by numerous expert studies to serve a child’s physical and psychological needs best,” according to an article in The Tablet.

According to NBC News, in June 2016 the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic struck down a law which kept people in legally recognized same-gender partnerships from adopting children. The Czech Republic is a mostly agnostic nation, but Catholicism is the largest denomination. The nation has seen little change from their landmark decision in 2006 to create a “registered partnership” class for same-gender couples. Registered partnerships are similar to marriages but with fewer rights, such as–until recently–not having the right to adopt children. The previous law, however, did allow single LGB people or same-gender couples not in a “registered partnership” to adopt as it only restricted those in “registered partnerships.” The court’s June 2016 decision allows one member of a registered partnership to adopt but still does not yet allow both partners to hold joint custody.

In his statement, Bishop Maly said recent increases in child abuse and neglect require increased dialogue on the country’s adoption system. But while Maly’s observations are accurate, research shows LGB adoptive parenting may, in fact, be part of the solution to this problem.

According to SOS Children’s Villages, the world’s largest charity working with orphaned and abandoned children, the Czech Republic relies on institutionalized care (e.g., orphanages) for orphaned and disadvantaged youth instead of foster care systems. Institutionalized care, according to Dr. Victor Groza, the Grace F. Brody Professor of Parent-Child Studies at the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, causes problems with developmental, physical, psychological, social and brain health. Dr. Groza stated, “The regimentation and ritualization of institutional life do not provide children with the quality of life, or the experiences they need to be healthy, happy, fully functioning adults.” They are also unable to form strong and lasting relationships with adults, leading to severe problems with socialization, primarily building trust and lasting relationships amongst adults and children alike.

Not only is the Czech system inherently harmful to children because it is institutionalized, but, as SOS Children’s Villages claims, Czech institutions also fail to meet the children’s basic needs because the facilities are too large, not adapted to individualized care, do not allow children to make any choices of their own, and provide only minimal to contact with the outside world, including their siblings.

Dr. Petra Vrtbovska from the Prague Institute for Foster Care provided a descriptive diagnosis of Czech child-support services:

“In the Czech Republic children’s homes still look very, very old-fashioned. There are still thirty, forty or fifty children in one big building… They are moved from one section to another, from one institution to another and combined with the original trauma this type of life-style leads to future disasters. Most of these young people are seriously disturbed. They have got clothes and they are not hungry but emotionally and socially these young people are not able to function which creates an enormous ongoing trauma in them.”

Apart from the emotional damage Czech institutional care inflicts on children, the system also has a wider impact on Czech society as a whole, says Vrtbovska:

“It is also very difficult for society because these people end up in the streets, on drugs, in psychiatric clinics, prisons… so it creates very big problems on both sides. But I always tend to pity those poor young people more because they suffer enormously and society should do something about it when they are young. It is very difficult to do something about it when they are twenty-five.”

SOS Children’s Villages adds, “when the children leave these institutions, they are not ready to live independently… 41% end up committing a crime.”

Vrtbovska also found that many children are overlooked by adults seeking to adopt. She explained, “there are a lot of couples here who want to adopt children but these people usually want healthy, white, newborn babies… Roma children account for 60% of all residents in care facilities.” Children with disabilities or from migrant or Roma backgrounds go overlooked.

Vrtbovska attributes this discrepancy to:

“a hidden prejudice against Romany kids – the racist belief that every Roma kid will steal, every Roma kid is lazy. So there is prejudice…. Romany children [who] end up in an orphanage have little chance of ever finding a new family.”

Amongst this Czech childcare crisis, Bishop Maly insisted heterosexual parents are the only safe option for children who would supposedly be endangered by same-gender parents. However no such proof is found in the Czech Republic’s system, a system hampered by prejudices based on race and physical ability from both caretakers and prospective adoptive parents alike. Heterosexual couples applying for children have yet to supply a sufficient number of homes for these children. Same-gender couples could offer the needed homes.

According to the What We Know Project, the Columbia Law School’s Public Policy Research Portal, “research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.” While four studies concluded opposite-gender parenting is better than same-gender parenting, the What We Know Project discredited these as, “so misleading as to be inaccurate,” since they did not establish key controlled variables between opposite-gender parents and same-gender parents.

On the other hand, the What We Know Project found 74 studies showing no significant differences in child development, educational outcomes or health between same-gender and opposite-gender parents. CNN reported that the most recent study—which was released in April of 2016 in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics—concluded, “children of same-sex parents are just as healthy emotionally and physically as the children of different-sex parents.”

Other studies have shown same-gender adoptive parents tend to be more involved in parenting, adopt more disadvantaged children and allow open relationships with birth parents. In a Live Science interview, Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University, Massachusetts, who researches same-gender couple parenting, said:

“Gay parents ‘tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents… Gay parents, rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50% accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals.”

In the same Live Science article, Brian Powell—Co-Director of the Preparing Future Faculty program at the Indiana University Bloomington’s Department of Sociology—there is one disadvantage:

“If same-sex marriage does disadvantage kids in any way, it has nothing to do with their parent’s gender and everything to do with society’s reaction toward the families.”

Bishop Maly’s statement, while intending to support Czech children needing adoptive parents, ignores the enormous potential same-gender couples offer. The bishop suggested a “deeper understanding of humanity” is needed by society. Maly should reflect on his own words before speaking on topics he has yet to fully research or understand. Perhaps this situation is an opportunity for our hierarchy to discover that prioritizing outdated family models over the needs of our flock can only lead to one end: separation of church and reality.

As Archbishop Hunthausen Turns 95, Remembering Him as a Precursor to Pope Francis

Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen turned 95 in August, and he was hailed by writers for the National Catholic Reporter and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as a forerunner of the activist, pastoral, and socially-conscious style of church leadership that has been championed by Pope Francis.  Not least among Hunthausen’s qualities that are similar to the pontiff was his readiness to offer words of welcome to LGBT people.

Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen

Hunthausen retired as archbishop of Seattle in 199o, leaving a long legacy of courageously speaking out on issues which sparked controversy such as nuclear weapons, LGBT equality, communion for the divorced/remarried, general absolution, and lay decision-making.  In a 2015 article for the National Catholic Reporter, Kenneth Briggs summarized the proud history of stands that Hunthausen took, which eventually earned him the ire of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II:

“Thirty years ago, Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen was figuratively clapped in irons and thrown into the dungeon by now pope emeritus Josef Ratzinger, with the explicit approval of John Paul II. Not for committing crimes of theft or child abuse, which went unpunished then and mostly now, but for demonstrating values and practices that Pope Francis appears to approve in whole or in part.

“In his 1985 indictment of the Seattle archbishop, Ratzinger summed up accusations gathered in his investigation whose point man in the U.S. was Archbishop James Hickey of Washington, D.C. Among the charges: that Hunthausen had allowed divorced Catholics without annulments to take communion; gave lay people unauthorized influence in shaping programs as “a kind of voting process on doctrinal or moral teachings”; permitted intercommunion at weddings and funerals, calling it “clearly abusive”; and supported a homosexual group to meet in the cathedral, which risked ignoring the Magisterium’s judgment that same-sex acts were “an intrinsic moral evil, intrinsically distorted and self-indulgent.” In addition to welcoming the gay group to the cathedral, he’d stood up for homosexual dignity in the Seattle Gay News in 1977.

“He was also chastised for giving the green light to general absolution.

“Not mentioned but clearly decisive in this offensive was the archbishop’s staunch protest against nuclear arms in general and the Trident submarine base near Seattle. He had joined anti-Trident demonstrations and refused to pay half of his federal income tax.”

America magazine ran a review of a biography of Hunthausen last year where they spelled out the upshot of the Vatican’s investigation of Hunthausen:

“The Vatican’s reaction was to appoint an auxiliary bishop with special faculties, Donald Wuerl. Hunthausen sought the advice of the Rev. James Coriden, the best canon lawyer in the United States, who told him he did not know what to advise because the Vatican seemed to be making up the rules as it went along. Bishop Wuerl gained final authority over six areas: liturgy, marriage, clergy and seminarians, ex-priests and any issues related to health care and homosexuals. In effect, the archbishop was symbolically stripped of office.”

Last month’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer article provided some important details on some of Hunthausen’s LGBT involvement:

“Hunthausen spoke for the human rights of gays and lesbians, in the pews and in society.  Using an article in the Catholic Northwest Progress, he decried ‘the terrible impact that discriminatory patterns in society have upon individuals and the total community.’

“Hunthausen let the LGBT Catholic group Dignity close its annual conference, being held in Seattle, with a mass in his cathedral.  It was one of the ‘sins’ that brought Cardinal Hickey of Washington, D.C., out here on a Vatican-ordered investigation. The investigation came under the auspices of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, who would become Benedict XVI.

“The long ago Dignity mass came to mind after the Orlando massacre.  An anti-violence march wound from St. Mark’s Cathedral to St. James, with Mayor Ed Murray and young LGBT activists taking the pulpit of St. James for readings. The cathedral’s pastor, the Very Rev. Michael Ryan, served as chancellor of the Seattle Archdiocese under Hunthausen.”

One other detail about the Dignity mass incident was that Hunthausen had planned on welcoming the conference members to the Cathedral personally.  However, he had been summoned to appear in Rome at the same time that the Dignity group was meeting.  Undaunted, Hunthausen provided an audio tape recording of his welcome which was played at the beginning of the mass.

Briggs was explicit in comparing Hunthausen to Francis:

“His [Hunthausen’s] stands sound a great deal like the kind that harmonize with the church Pope Francis inspires, one which forgives, treats those who fall outside strict doctrinal with tolerance and bestows mercy on those who might be considered unworthy under other regimes. Openness to homosexuals, broader welcome to communion, a greater, equal role for lay people, a witness to faith determined by compassion and attention to suffering rather than law and order: the overlap between Francis and Raymond would appear to be astounding.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article drew similar parallels:

“The advent of Pope Francis has brought back the virtues for which Hunthausen was beloved by Western Washington Catholics, so much so that the Vatican backed off from its effort at public humiliation and stripping the archbishop of his powers.

“As an example, Pope Francis has named a panel to explore letting women serve in the role of Catholic deacons, as they did in the early church.  Under Hunthausen, the Archdiocese of Seattle halted ordaining new deacons until the role of women in the diaconate was addressed.

“Hunthausen was a pastor in his diocese, living simply and reaching out — always reaching out.”

When Hunthausen retired, he returned to his hometown of Helena, Montana, where he now lives in a retirement home with his brother Jack, also a priest, according to a biographical article in the Helena Independent Record.  The article mentioned that he now needs 24 -hour physical care, but that his mind is still as sharp as ever.  This sharpness is evident in a quote from Hunthausen about Pope Francis that America magazine reported last year:

“Francis is doing the things I tried to do!”

Archbishop Hunthausen, on many levels and for many issues, has been a prophet.  It is more than pleasing to note that he sees his legacy finally being carried out at the highest levels of our church.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

 

Priest Who Blessed Lesbian Couple’s Love Now Facing Church Sanctions

Fr. José García with Carmen and Lucia

A Spanish priest is facing disciplinary sanctions after blessing a same-gender couple the day before their civil marriage.

Fr. José García held a “blessing of love” for Carmen and Lucia at Saint Bartholemew Church in Onda, Spain. The July 30th ceremony was attended by their family and friends. García explained the women sought to “celebrate the love they have for God and the love which exists between them,” according to the blog Dos Manzanas. The couple was married in a civil ceremony the next day.

This blessing became public in late August when a conservative Spanish new outlet posted about it, eliciting a response from the Diocese of Segorbe-Castellón. Acknowledging first that lesbian and gay people should not be discriminated against, the diocese’s statement quoted Pope Francis in saying “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family [Amoris Laetitia, no. 251].”

According to the statement. Fr. García was then visited by both the diocese’s Vicar General and Bishop Casmiro López Llorent who demanded an explanation from the priest. The diocese said Fr. García admitted to the bishop the “grave error” of his actions, saying they were motivated by “an erroneous application of mercy” that “did not distinguish the welcome and pastoral accompaniment of persons” from what may seem like approval of same-gender marriage.

The statement reported that the priest apologized to people who considered the blessing scandalous, and he promised not to act similarly in the future. But recanting is seemingly not enough for Bishop López, reported Euro Weekly. The diocese has opened a canonical investigation against Fr. García to see whether formal sanctions should be applied for blessing the love between two people.

Critics of the diocese’s actions have noted the differing speeds with which this case and clerical sexual abuse allegations have been dealt with. Loottis, a Spanish LGBT blog, wrote:

“What is amazing is the speed with which the diocese of Segorbe-Castellón has reacted to this case and in contrast to other scandals which starred members of the Church as happened with the scandal of ‘The Romanones’ in Granada in which several priests were accused of abusing minors for years and the Spanish hierarchy hurried from the first moment to preserve the innocence of the priests involved.”

Loottis noted, too, that Bishop López has made LGBT-negative remarks in the past. In 2013, he said marriage equality had led to a “significant increase in children with severe personality disturbances” and that families led by lesbian and gay people created environments that “frequently ends in violence.”

It is quite sad that the diocese has punished Fr. García so severely, and that more sanctions may be coming. Media reports have been limited to the diocese’s account as the priest has either largely chosen to keep quiet or been silenced. But the limited statements he has made, explaining this incident as a blessing that celebrates love of God and between two people speaks volumes.

If the church blesses animals, ships, church vestments, eggs, and so much more, why are ministers barred from blessing the holy love that exists between two people? The hierarchy’s opposition to same-gender marriages is well known. But blessing love and supporting couples is precisely the type of pastoral accompaniment to which Pope Francis has called the church, even if such relationships do not conform to the heteronormative standards of the Magisterium. There is no love which is wrong, and there is no love outside God’s embrace.

The good news is that God clearly blesses the love between Carmen and Lucia, and their desire to have that love blessed in the church acknowledges their reciprocal love for God. Priests should not be punished for recognizing these realities, and being good pastoral ministers to LGBT people who have been marginalized. The only “grave error” in this incident will be if the canonical investigation now underway were to imperil Fr. García’s priesthood because he was simply a good priest.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

 

Ahead of Labor Day, Archbishop Supports Firing of Lesbian Church Worker

Kate Drumgoole, right, with wife Jaclyn Vanore

Newark’s archbishop has endorsed a Catholic high school’s firing of lesbian educator Kate Drumgoole, even as support for her grows.

Today, Bondings 2.0 focuses on the archbishop’s comments and legal case surrounding Drumgoole’s firing. Tomorrow, we will take up reactions to the firing from Catholics and others in the local community.

Archbishop John Myers said in a statement that Drumgoole’s same-gender marriage to Jaclyn Vanore could “create confusion and uncertainty in the moral formation” of students, reported The Record. He affirmed Paramus Catholic High School’s firing of Drumgoole, which he described as “corrective steps” taken to protect the church’s mission and identity.

Drumgoole, a beloved Dean of Guidance and women’s basketball coach at Paramus Catholic, was fired in January after her wife’s estranged sister sent pictures of the couple to school officials. These photos were not public, according to The Record.

Last month, Drumgoole filed a discrimination lawsuit against the high school and the Archdiocese of Newark. A judge denied Paramus Catholic’s motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds, and the case has now entered a year-long discovery period.

At this point, the case seems to hinge on whether Drumgoole’s work was ministerial in nature , which would exempt the school from state non-discrimination protections. Drumgoole’s lawyers, Eric and Lawrence Kleiner, argue that the educator was not a minister and that Paramus Catholic cannot practice selective portions of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination while dispensing other portions.

To this end, the lawyers will be interviewing school employees whose personal lives contradict church teaching, and yet who have not been fired. This evidence may reveal a “big dichotomy,” they say, showing selective enforcement of church teaching in such a way that discriminates against LGBT people. The Record explained:

” ‘This is a rare case where, in our estimation, based on the paperwork that’s been provided, the defense is not claiming it was a budgetary concern, they replaced somebody because of poor performance. They are openly admitting that same sex led to the determination to terminate her. So this is a direct of discrimination,’ Eric Kleiner said. ‘Which will be attacked directly in discovery.’

“In paperwork filed in the defense motion, a monsignor said he found Drumgoole’s conduct to be ‘odious,’ Eric Kleiner said. ‘Odious is an extremely revolting and repulsive statement. That bespeaks where we’ll be going on discovery.’ “

Eric Kleiner told The Record that Drumgoole’s heroism in seeking justice “will not be muted or diffused or lessened by the extremely harsh and divisive language given by the Archbishop.” Lawrence Kleiner spoke of the division in the Catholic Church on LGBT equality, saying the archbishop was “taking an issue that has already divided its members and turning it into a chasm.” And Drumgoole said the couple was humbled by the support they have received, and that this case was about more than their marriage:

” ‘This is an issue for individuals and families. And not necessarily simply families who have individuals who are gay or who are involved in same-sex marriage. But just individuals who believe in equality and believe that people should be able to love freely — and still be employed where they’re employed.’ “

Many people in the Newark area, and particularly Catholics, have taken interest in this case because of the archbishop’s checkered history.

Mark Crawford, New Jersey state director for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, told The Record that Myers was “hypocritical” and “backward” because “[h]e’ll protect those clergy he knows abused children yet hold these hard-line positions against people who love each other.”

Alfred P. Doblin,  The Record’s editorial page editor, recalled the case of former priest Michael Fugee to sharpen this contrast. Fugee’s conviction of sexually assaulting a child was overturned only because of a judicial error. Under Myer’s leadership, the priest returned to ministry and even had unsupervised contact with children despite signing a memorandum with the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office to avoid minors.

At the time, Myers said that Fugee’s case had “more grays than black and white,” but Doblin questioned where the grays were and said there was “no consistency in the way Myers has dealt with church employees.” Doblin concluded:

“[Myers] writes, ‘The invitation to join in the life of the Church does not include an invitation to alter or redefine what the Church believes and teaches, nor is it an invitation to allow others to define the identity, mission and message of the Church.’

“How, then, does Myers justify his own past actions? He writes that the church acts only on facts. Only when ‘credible evidence’ comes to the attention of the archdiocese that an employee is violating the tenets of the Catholic faith will there be an investigation and appropriate action. . .

“Myers contorted himself to defend the indefensible: the continued ministry of Michael Fugee when there were more-than-credible allegations that the man was a sexual predator. . .The archbishop’s actions speak louder than his letter.”

The Star-Ledger editorialized further that church leaders who shelter abusive priests are “what really endangers the moral formation of students,” adding:

“Since 75-year-old Myers will not go quietly into the already large, $700,000 weekend house he used $500,000 in church funds to expand into a 7,500 square foot retirement mansion, let’s review the moral foundation it was built on. Not only did Myers refuse to release the names of priests credibly accused of child abuse during his 15-year tenure, like other churches do, he protected some of them personally. . .

“Would Jesus really tell this woman her lifestyle is ‘odious’ because she’s gay, while protecting pedophile priests? If students learn anything from that, it’s bigotry and hypocrisy.”

Myers has a notably negative record on LGBT issues. Last week, he suspended Fr. Warren Hall from priestly ministry, having fired him last year from directing Campus Ministry at Seton Hall University because Hall expressed support for the NOH8 Campaign. Myers released a 2015 memorandum to church ministers saying people in same-gender civil marriages, and even Catholics who support marriage equality, should be denied Communion. He made this same point when New Jersey was debating marriage equality. Thankfully, in both cases, his words were largely ignored.

Tomorrow’s post for Labor Day examine the ways Catholics have responded supportively to the cases of Kate Drumgoole, Fr. Warren Hall, and many other unjustly fired church workers.

For Bondings 2.0‘s full coverage of this story, and other LGBT-related church worker disputes, click the ‘Employment Issues‘ category to the right or here. You can click here to find a full listing of the more than 60 incidents since 2008 where church workers have lost their jobs over LGBT identity, same-sex marriages, or public support for equality.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Revealing the Potential Harm of the Vatican’s Sex Education Curriculum

Today’s blog post is from New Ways Ministry’s newest staff member, Glen Bradley.  A 2016 graduate of the Jesuit-run Santa Clara University, California, Glen is a member of the Loretto Volunteer Program.  We were delighted to welcome him to the staff last week, and now we are delighted to welcome him as a contributor to this blog.

As Bondings 2.0 reported last week, the Vatican’s new sexual education program (The Meeting Point) inadequately educates youth on sexuality and gender because it does not include LGBTQ inclusive material and instead relies on strong heterosexist and cis-sexist biases–which privilege the lives and experiences of heterosexual people and people whose gender identity/expression conforms to societal norms and with their sex assigned at birth.

The Vatican’s negligent program excludes the reality of LGBTQ people in our world today and poses serious threats to all students–LGBTQ and straight-cisgender alike–by potentially negatively impacting their academic performance, personal development and health.

Some Catholics oppose educating children on LGBTQ people and relationships, believing that doing so would confuse them and harm their development. However, recent educational research shows that an inclusive curriculum does just the opposite. Josh A. Goodman—counseling psychology doctoral candidate at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Huffington Post contributor—pointed out the benefits of inclusion in his article “5 Reasons Schools Should Adopt LGBTQ-inclusive Sex Ed”:

“[LGBTQ inclusive sexual education] teaches about sexual orientation and gender identity as they actually exist. Regardless of a person’s moral views, it is a fact that humans have a diverse array of sexual orientations and gender identities. To only teach about one sexual orientation, to ignore gender minorities, and to suggest that a heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable relationship for sexual activity makes invisible the experiences of LGBTQ people and presents an inaccurate view of human sexuality. If we are to prepare youth of all sexual orientations and gender identities to feel good about their sexuality, make safe and responsible choices involving relationships and sexual activity, and appreciate—or at least tolerate—the gender and sexual diversity of their peers and community members, incorporating LGBTQ topics and perspectives into the curriculum is essential.”

In short, excluding LGBTQ topics from a curriculum teaches a dangerous lie: that either LGBTQ people do not exist or they do not have healthy relationships.

Not only would students at Catholic schools be miseducated on the realities of sexuality and gender, research has found that sexual education excluding LGBTQ identities and relationships create health and development risks. GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey found that LGBTQ children who did not receive LGBTQ-inclusive sexual education programs were

• less likely to feel safe at school, more likely to miss school because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable
• less likely to feel comfortable talking about LGBTQ issues with school personnel
• less likely to be able to identify educators who were supportive of LGBTQ students (GLSEN).

Regardless of the curriculum, LGBTQ children are already negatively affected by LGBTQ-phobia from their peers and the adults at school. According to The Southern Poverty Law Center’s resource guide Best Practices: Creating an LGBT-inclusive School Climate:

“LGBT students report being harassed at school–both verbally and physically–at twice the rate of non-LGBT youth. With heightened stressors like bullying, harassment and a lack of role models, LGBT students are also more likely to experience negative educational outcomes.”

A non-inclusive curriculum sends a brutal message: that the school does not fully support and value their LGBTQ students.

Other research has found that LGBTQ-inclusive sexual education is an effective way of reducing LGBTQ-phobia in schools. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States released guidelines saying,

“Most importantly for LGBTQ youth, comprehensive sex education provides factual, non-stigmatizing information on sexual orientation and gender identity as a part of human development and teaches youth to respect LGBTQ people with messages like ‘Making fun of people for not acting the way society expects them to based on their biological sex [sic.] is disrespectful and hurtful’ and ‘People deserve respect regardless of who they are attracted to.’

Furthermore, lowered LGBTQ-phobia from inclusive sexual education has been effective in reducing mental health problems and improving academic performance. A new report found that students with LGBTQ-inclusive sexual education had increased academic performance because they were less likely to report harassment and more likely to feel safe at school. The same research found that while inclusive curriculums in other subjects also contributed to higher academic performance because of decreased abuse and mental health problems, but that inclusive sexual education classes had the greatest impact with regard to school climate.

Very importantly, research has shown that inclusive sexual education does not only benefit LGBTQ students. GLSEN revealed positive outcomes for both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ students in a report saying that an inclusive curriculum

“. . .would benefit not only LGBT youth, but also provide non-LGBT youth with an opportunity to dispel myths about issues of sexual orientation and gender and broaden their understanding about LGBT peoples and communities.”

Similarly, decreased LGBTQ-phobia in schools improves the health and development of all students. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s resource guide states:

“Creating a supportive environment for LGBT students improves educational outcomes for all students, not just those who may identify as LGBT. And remember, it’s not about politics—it’s about supporting students. Any educator, regardless of his personal beliefs, can be a resource for LGBT students.”

Research has also quantified the positive effects of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) and anti-homophobic policies on heterosexual boys, finding that “heterosexual boys were half as likely to attempt suicide as those in schools without GSAs” and “heterosexual boys [at schools with anti-homophobic policies that have been in place for more than three years] had 27% lower odds of suicidal thoughts than heterosexual boys in schools without.”

While Catholic schools certainly need GSAs and LGBTQ-supportive policies to combat LGBTQ-phobia in schools, inclusive sexual education is a place to start. GLSEN’s A Call To Action report says LGBTQ-inclusive sexual education is, “a logical venue to help young people learn about identity and encourage acceptance for LGBTQ people and families.”

An inclusive sexual education program for our church would properly educate our children on the realities of LGBTQ people in our world today, while improving students’ mental health, reducing suicide and improving academic performance. Sadly, our Church leaders have not done this in The Meeting Point. The result is a sexual education program that can be very dangerous. But instead of responding with despair, we can use this opportunity as a rallying cry to work to save our children from the dangers of an inadequate curriculum, which has potential for so much damage.

Perhaps the authors of The Meeting Point gave us the analytical test we need when evaluating their curriculum. They quote Rev. Servais-Théodore Pinckaers, O.P., on truth:

“Without the truth, there is neither happiness nor lasting love” (Contents6.0_Educator, page 6).

The first step toward justice is in our ability to seek, see, and reveal the truth to others. The Meeting Point is anything but truthful with regard to sexual and gender realities, realities that include LGBTQ identities and relationships. In this disillusionment, we find neither truth nor love, yet it is our duty as faithful followers of Christ to now bring both to our children and our church.

–Glen Bradley New Ways Ministry

Reading Between the Lines of Massachusetts’ Bishops Statement on Transgender Rights

When Massachusetts passed a law in July allowing transgender people access to locker rooms and restrooms that align with their gender identity, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC) responded with a statement that was very non-confrontational. Indeed, it might even have seemed like the Conference welcomed the law’s passage.  In part, the statement read:

“We urge respect in this discussion for all those whose rights require protection. In our parishes, schools and other institutions, the Church will respect the civil law while upholding the principles of our faith and our religious freedom.”

A quick reading of these two sentences might tell someone that the MCC supports the new law and that they plan to implement it in Catholic Church institutions across the state.  But the particular phrasing of the statement might indicate that the MCC is keeping its options open.  For example, although they “urge respect in this discussion,” they are vague about who this respect is for, saying only that is “all those whose rights require protection.”  I might assume that this means transgender people, but the MCC may mean it applies to churches who feel their religious liberty is at stake.

Similarly, the statement says that they will “respect the civil law.”  I did a double-take on this one.  At first, I thought that they intended to mean “obey” or “follow” the civil law.  The rest of the sentence qualifies the respect they will give the law, implying they will do so only as they are “upholding the principles of our faith and our religious freedom.”

So, what do they mean?  Is the MCC supporting transgender rights or are they defending the Catholic Church against a perceived attack on its religious freedom?

The rest of the MCC statement does not give any further insight into the intention of these church leaders. In fact, the statement defies taking a solid position at almost every turn.  For example, they say of the new law:

“. . . [I]ts implementation will require both careful oversight and respect for all individuals using such public accommodations.”

Does this mean that they support transgender persons’ rights to use the bathroom which aligns with their gender identity or does it mean that individuals who do not want transgender people in their public restrooms will be allowed to eject them?

Additionally, the MCC statement offers the following advice:

“The complex challenge of crafting legislative protections for some in our community while meeting the needs of the wider population will require sensitive application of the legislation just passed.”

Again, using a vague term like “sensitive application” means we don’t know where the Massachusetts bishops stand on this law.  I’m sure that every law enforcement official believes they are applying laws sensitively, but that doesn’t mean they are always doing so.

Perhaps most revealing of the MCC’s position on transgender issues comes from a statement they made alluding to Pope Francis’ negative approach to gender identity questions.  They state that the pope

“. . . acknowledges the pluralism within and among cultures regarding sexuality and marriage, but he also warns against an absolute separation of the physical and cultural understanding of sexuality and gender.”

This statement clearly shows that the MCC does not support the idea of gender transition.  Yet, it doesn’t say where the MCC will stand on the rights of transgender people in society.  (You can read the statement in its entirety by clicking here.)

A recent op-ed essay in The Cape Cod Times notes that the vague and ambiguous wording of the MCC statement will only lead to further problems down the road.   John J. Donovan, the author, who has taught college-level theology, says the bishops’ response is “very vague at best, and very troublesome at worst.”  He explains his position:

“Because the Massachusetts bishops’ statement is so poorly written it would seem that one of those little church/state clashes is inevitable. Those clashes produce neither sanctity nor good law. The state law is well-crafted, written by lawyers. It would seem the onus is on the bishops to write a better response.”

I think he is right. Since the MCC would not take a definitive position on the law, it seems like they may be positioning themselves to defend a church institution who would deny restroom or locker room access to a transgender person.  Donovan offers good advice for the bishops’ future statements on such issues:

“Before a better response is attempted, perhaps more theologizing should take place. The theologizing should cover in as much depth as possible not only the concept of gender identification but also the entire scope of sexuality in all its beauty and mystery.”

When bishops write so vaguely and ambiguously, they easily open themselves up to writing like politicians do.  Our church deserves better from its leaders.  We need bishops who will speak boldly and courageously to protect the human and civil rights of all, especially those, like transgender people, who continue to be marginalized across our nation and around the world.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

 

 

How Important Is It to Know If an Archbishop Is Gay?

It always makes me uncomfortable when I read a news story which alleges or reveals the homosexuality of a church leader who has a particularly nasty record on LGBT issues.  Not because I don’t believe that these stories are possibly true.  It’s more because such stories often seem to have a not-so-subtle message of “Aha!  We always knew it! What a hypocrite!”

Archbishop John Nienstedt

Such a story emerged this past week.  MinnPost.com carried an essay by Tim Gihring with a title which explains the situation: “Does it matter whether Archbishop John Nienstedt is gay?”  Nienstedt is the retired archbishop of St. Paul, Minnesota, who, in addition to having a very strong stand against marriage equality and other LGBT issues, was forced to resign when his gross mishandling of clergy sex abuse cases was revealed.  Rumors have also circulated for a long time that Nienstedt himself is gay, and that he was sexually active in secret.  He has denied these rumors.

Gihring’s article differs somewhat from the usual form these stories take, though.  In the conclusion of his essay, Gihring writes about the “trap” in which Nienstedt seemed to be caught:

“By closing the door to homosexuality, marking its expression as the work of Satan and the most aberrant of sins, Nienstedt had nowhere to go with his own desires. He left himself no way out.”

That, to me, is such a sad set of sentences.  They describe to me a gay man who did not learn to accept himself, and whose lack of self-esteem provided him no opportunity than to act out sexually in unhealthy ways, and to project his own self-hatred onto others.

Gihring’s “trap” in which he believes Niensteedt was caught is bigger than just his denial of homosexuality.  Gihring speculates that Nienstedt made a deal with church officials that if he covered up sexual abuse cases, they would cover up his homosexual liaisons.  Gihring writes:

“For pushing back on gays in the church, among other issues, Nienstedt would be promoted and promoted and promoted again. He would also be protected: Among the revelations in the documents unsealed last month is that the Vatican envoy to the United States quashed an investigation into Nienstedt’s homosexual activity and ordered evidence destroyed.

“The evidence that exists, in the form of corroborated witness accounts, suggests that Nienstedt spent his time in Minnesota, from 2001 to 2015, living a precarious double life: indulging his homosexual tendencies, even as he railed against them. . . .

“. . . .[T]he deal that Nienstedt long ago made for the benefit of his career — to follow the church into conservatism — now seems a kind of ecclesiastical quid pro quo: if he covered for the sins of the church, the church would cover for his. The internal investigation of him, reportedly quashed by the Vatican, had been his idea — he was that confident that his name would be cleared.”

Gehring is skating on thin ice here.  He has made it seem like an agreement was made by the Vatican and Nienstedt.  Unfortunately, his case is built totally on speculation.  If, in fact, the Vatican did quash an investigation of Nienstedt, it is a huge leap of inference to claim that this was connected to any kind of “deal” that was arranged.

I am not defending Nienstedt’s actions, either in his mishandling of sex abuse cases or his possible homosexual liaisons.  But let’s remember that these two different types of actions are qualitatively different.   In the sex abuse cases, his actions did terrible harm to vulnerable people, and to the Church community. If he engaged in promiscuous, casual, or anonymous sexual encounters, any potential harm would have affected only himself and his partners, who presumably were consenting adults.

Neither am I excusing Nienstedt’s terrible record of opposing LGBT equality.  He has spent an inordinate amount of energy and church money to deny LGBT people their civil rights, and as this blog’s archives show, New Ways Ministry has opposed him on all these matters.

In the case of his sexual behavior, the real culprits here are the structures of the church which actually promote such behavior:  clericalism and homophobia. The privilege that clerics receive and the fear and silence that surround any discussion of homosexuality in the church create a toxic atmosphere, even for those who supposedly “benefit” from these structures.

So what’s the answer to the question of Gihring’s title question: “Does it matter whether Archbishop John Nienstedt is gay?”  I think the answer is yes, it does matter because it is an integral part of who he is.  I think, though, that the answer is not just important for the public to know, but, more importantly, for Nienstedt himself to know.  Part of the great tragedy here is that a church system has let a man get to Nienstedt’s place in life without allowing him the freedom and security to know and accept who he is.

If any definitive evidence emerges that Nienstedt is, in fact, gay–and the only solid evidence of that would be his own admission–then I don’t think that would be an occasion to gloat over hypocrisy.  It would be an occasion first to lament the pain that he must have experienced as a terribly closeted gay man. It should also be an occasion to reinvigorate our efforts to end clericalism and homophobia in the church, and all the myriad personal and structural ills they bring.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

Related posts and articles:

For all Bondings 2.0 posts about Archbishop Nienstedt’s connections with LGBT issues, click here.

Bondings 2.0:  “Minneapolis Archbishop Nienstedt: “I’m not gay…I’m not anti-gay.”

Minnesota Public Radio: “Archbishop authorized secret investigation of himself”

Star Tribune: “Twin Cities Archbishop John Nienstedt faces new sex claims”

National Catholic Reporter: “Report: Minnesota Archbishop Nienstedt under scrutiny for same-sex relationships”

TwinCities.com: “Nienstedt under scrutiny for same-sex relationships, ex-official says”

The Wild Reed: “Has Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Shadow” Finally Caught Up With Him?”

Vatican’s Sex Ed Curriculum Gets Low Grade for LGBT Topics

A curriculum for youth sex education has been released by the Vatican, and while it provides a more holistic approach to sexuality, some glaring omissions make it dangerous material for LGBT young people.

For heterosexual cisgender* young people, the Vatican’s new sex education curriculum, entitled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People,” offers healthy approaches and guidelines for personal integration and development.  Absent from this document, however, is any mention of similar guidelines that will help  lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth understand their own unique and holy experiences of sexuality and gender. [*Editor’s note:  “cisgender” refers to people whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex.]

If this program is used in schools and parishes, it will send a damaging message of silence and invisibility to LGBT youth at very vulnerable points in their lives.  The material sends the message that they are not considered by the church, not welcome, and, worst of all, that they do not even exist.

Because the curriculum assumes heterosexuality as the only valid form of love, and because it assumes that gender is definitively binary and assigned to individuals based on sex (male/female), this material will instill shame, fear, and self-hatred in LGBT young people who are taught from it.   Such negative feelings lead to depression, anxiety, addiction, self-harm, and, tragically, even suicide.

Some examples of the deficiencies in the document include:

In suggestions to the religious education teacher, the document includes the following statements:

• “The step before falling in love is feeling attracted to a person of the opposite sex.”
• “Choosing our boyfriend/girlfriend. This is another step in which they have to mature, opening themselves up to what is most difficult – to that which is different -, discovering reciprocity and heterosexuality.”
• ‘Two ways of existing as a person: The body and soul constitute the unified corporeal-spiritual totality that is the human person. But this totality necessarily exists in the form of a man or of a woman. There is no other possibility than this for the existence of the human person. . . .Our very anatomical traits, as an objective expression of this masculinity or femininity, are endowed with an objectively transcendent significance: they are called to be a visible manifestation of the person.”
• “The duality of the sexes affirms the axiological meaning of sexuality: man is for woman, woman is for man, and parents are for their children . The sexual difference indicates this reciprocal complementarity, and is oriented toward communication: toward feeling, expressing and living out human love, opening oneself to a greater fulfillment.”

Additionally, the document incorrectly refers to “pansexualism” as occurring when “happiness becomes confused with the greatest amount and duration of pleasures.” In the scientific community, the word refers to “the belief that a sexual instinct drives all human behavior.” With regard to an identity, “pansexual” describes “the sexual attraction, romantic love, or emotional attraction toward people regardless of their sex or gender identity.”

What makes this curriculum even more disappointing is that there are actually some good, broad approaches to other aspects of sexuality which would be good for LGBT young people to apply to their lives.  The document discusses areas including the idea that sexuality is far more than sexual activity, the various dimensions of human relationships, the importance of respecting the human dignity of others and of self,  the ways to integrate emotions into one’s life, the proper exercise of freedom, the importance of developing healthy relationships, the place of morality in making decisions about relationships, and many others.  These are lessons important to all young people.  However, since the material has a bias for heterosexuality and the gender binary, it is likely that these valuable messages will not get through to LGBT youth, who will likely feel themselves excluded from this conversation.

Likewise heterosexual and cisgender youth also lose if LGBT issues are not included, as they are deprived of a wealth of information about human development.  Such information could most readily be of use to this group if students if they have an LGBT friend or relative.

The fact that several secular sex education experts have praised it, and that a number of ultra-conservative Catholics have condemned it, may be the best evidence that there are some good ideas in this new approach.  For instance, Cleveland.com reported:

Seattle’s Tina Schermer Sellers, author of an upcoming book titled “Sex, God & the Conservative Church – Erasing Shame from Sexual Intimacy,” praised the new curriculum’s departure from teachings that were “ineffective and often hurtful,” including scare tactics, and presentation of God as unforgiving, unloving and damning.

Sellers said programs that couple sex education with a framework of values – as the new Vatican program does – help young people “make better sexual choices, get involved sexually later and have more satisfying sexual lives later in life.”

Indeed, it is commendable that there are no explicit condemnations of LGBT people in this curriculum.  Such would not have been the case even five years ago. This development shows that the Church is changing.  But, LGBT Catholics and their allies cannot be satisfied simply with the absence of condemnations. And our church’s leaders need to recognize the damage done by avoiding LGBT people in discussions of gender and sexuality.  In many places around the globe, these issues are discussed daily in mass media and ordinary conversation.  Young people, in particular, are acutely aware of these realities.  The silence about LGBT issues in this curriculum will speak loudly–and negatively–to young people.

If the Vatican wants to truly be comprehensive in their approach to sexuality, which this curriculum is one step towards being, Church leaders need to be pro-active in humanely addressing the experiences, lives, and relationships of LGBT people, and to affirm their holiness.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

Related posts:

Global Pulse:  “Vatican launches sex ed website”

Cruxnow.com: “Vatican issues its own sex ed guidelines”

 

 

 

 

‘Pope Francis’ Bishop Calls for Inclusive Church that Lives Out Vatican II

Bishop Vincent Long

An Australian bishop appointed by Pope Francis has powerfully called on the church to make space for lesbian, bisexual, and gay people, and to examine how it handles homosexuality, as part of his larger call for the church to press on in the work set forth by Vatican II.

Bishop Vincent Long, OFM Conv., of Parramatta offered his remarks during the Ann D. Clark Lecture last week.  His talk was titled, “Pope Francis and the Challenge of Being Church Today.” Long said that among the church’s “greatest challenges” today is being inclusive, to be a church where, in Pope Francis’ vision, all are radically welcome. The bishop explained his definition of real ecclesial inclusiveness:

“By that I mean there must be space for everyone, especially those who have been hurt, excluded or alienated, be they abuse victims, survivors, divorcees, gays, lesbians, women, disaffected members. The church will be less than what Christ intends it to be when issues of inclusion and equality are not fully addressed. That is why you heard me say that I am guided by the radical vision of Christ. I am committed to make the church in Parramatta the house for all peoples, a church where there is less an experience of exclusion but more an encounter of radical love, inclusiveness and solidarity.”

In an extended section on inclusion, Long continued by saying the parable of the Good Samaritan is “an incisive lesson that cuts our prejudices to the quick” because through it Jesus redefined what goodness means and collapsed human boundaries. It is Jesus’ “vision of love, inclusion and human flourishing that ought to guide our pastoral response. ” The bishop pointedly added, “. . . it is the holders of the tradition who are often guilty of prejudice, discrimination and oppressive stereotype.” Because of these biases, Long said the church must look inward at its own response to people it has harmed:

“We cannot be a strong moral force and an effective prophetic voice in society if we are simply defensive, inconsistent and divisive with regards to certain social issues. We cannot talk about the integrity of creation, the universal and inclusive love of God, while at the same time colluding with the forces of oppression in the ill-treatment of racial minorities, women and homosexual persons. It won’t wash with young people especially when we purport to treat gay people with love and compassion and yet define their sexuality as ‘intrinsically disordered’. This is particularly true when the Church has not been a shining beacon and a trail-blazer in the fight against inequality and intolerance. Rather, it has been driven involuntarily into a new world where many of the old stereotypes have been put to rest and the identities and rights of the marginalised are accorded justice, acceptance, affirmation and protection in our secular and egalitarian society.”

Addressing the impact Pope Francis should have on Catholic engagement of homosexuality, Bishop Long commented:

“In one of his interviews on a rather thorny issue of homosexuality, Pope Francis says that we must always consider the person, because – I quote ‘when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ It seems to me that the Pope has more than moved away from the approach of condemnation and judgement. He has refocused on the proclamation of God’s love for the poor, the vulnerable and the marginalised; he has firmly placed the pastoral emphasis on the dignity of every person; he has committed the Church to the way of engagement, affirmation and compassion which is at the heart of the Gospel.”

Long’s call for the church to reform and renew its engagement of gender and sexuality issues was set within broader remarks about recapturing the vision set forth by the spirit of Vatican II. He said the church in Australia was at “a critical juncture” with declining numbers and public scandals rocking the institutional church. But with God there can be “unexpected outcomes of the most crushing defeats,” and he added:

“I believe that we are living in a watershed and a privileged moment in the history of the church. Just as the biblical exile brought about the most transforming experience that profoundly shaped the faith of Israel, this transition time can potentially launch the Church into a new era of hope, engagement and solidarity that the Second Vatican Council beckoned us with great foresight. From where I stand, the arrival of Pope Francis and his emphasis on servant leadership have unambiguously signaled this new era. He himself said poignantly that we are not living in an era of change but change of era. By this, he means that it is the church that needs to live up to its fundamental call to be ‘ecclesia semper reformanda’ or the church always in need of reform to be in sync with the movement of the Holy Spirit and direction of the Kingdom.”

Long said that, as part of this reform and renewal, there must be a “prophetic reframing” by properly interpreting the signs of the times “in a way that offers fresh and hopeful vision for the future.”

Long predominantly cited women as exemplars of faith, a notable point for church leaders who often condemn feminism. He cited the story of Puah and Shiphrah, Hebrew midwives at the beginning of the book of Exodus who rejected the Pharaoh’s desire that all young boys be killed.  He also mentioned the life of Mary MacKillop, founder of the Josephite Sisters in Oceania who was once silenced by church authorities but whose prophetic witness since been reclaimed. Remarking on the model of Christian leadership these women offer, the bishop said:

“It is a vocation of the Christian leader to be with his people in their hopes and struggles, anxieties and fears. He/she is to be ‘a Malcolm in the middle’ who occupies in betwixt and between, liminal, peripheral and precarious places. It is not easy to be in the middle, and to be loyal to both ends of the spectrum, to belong to the Church of orthodoxy and yet also to minister in the world of the unorthodox. That is really between the rock and the hard place as they call it. Yet, that is the calling of the leader, because we are meant to be in the coal face, in the messiness of it all and at the same time in fidelity to the Gospel. . .

“Being merciful is at the heart of Catholic identity. It is not simply a matter of acting with mercy and compassion to those in need with our position of power and privilege intact. Rather, it is a radical discipleship of vulnerability and powerlessness in the footsteps of the humble servant of God.”

Long ended his remarks by listing ways of being church that he believes must be reclaimed for this renewed and reformed vision to be built up, including:

• “Less a role of power, dominance and privilege but more a position of vulnerability and powerlessness. . .
• “Less an experience of exclusion and elitism but more an encounter of radical love, inclusiveness and solidarity. . .
• “Less a language of condemnation but more a language of affirmation and compassion.”

This is not Bishop Long’s first time speaking inclusively about LGBT issues. During the homily at his Installation Mass earlier this year, Long offered similar outreach to communities including LGB people hurt by the church. According to Tim Smyth of Acceptance, an Australian LGBT Catholics group, Long’s Installation Mass remark was “the first public statement by an Australian Bishop calling for spaces in our church for gay and lesbian Catholics.” Hopefully, the bishop will build on these remarks, and his pastoral leadership will help grow structural outreach to LGBT communities and their loved ones.

Worth noting, too, is that another Conventual Franciscan bishop appointed by Pope Francis recently made positive comments about LGBT issues. Bishop John Stowe, OFM Conv., of Lexington, Kentucky offered the reflections at this year’s conference for the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, and in the first of these remarks he addressed LGBT issues in a positive light. You can find out more about his remarks by clicking here.

To close this post, it is best to quote Bishop Long once again, who offered this prayer at the Lecture’s end, a prayer which seems fitting for LGBT advocates in the church in this critical historical moment:

“May we be like the prophets for our people during this our contemporary exile. May we be strengthened to walk the journey of faith with them, proclaim the message of hope, the signs of the new Kairos and lead them in the direction of the kingdom. May all of us enact the rhythm of the paschal mystery of dying and rising in the pattern of our Lord who is the Alpha and the Omega.”

Amen. To read Bishop Long’s full remarks, which I highly recommend, click here.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry