The 2014 Synod on the Family that Pope Francis has called, has been a truly remarkable and until today, an under reported story. The Times had this front page summary of the Synod’s first week, which included a radical departure from language used in a similar synod just a decade ago.
The gathering of bishops from around the world called on pastors to recognize, among other things, the “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation.”
The meeting, or synod, was called by Pope Francis to discuss issues related to the family in contemporary society. A report was given on Monday of the main considerations under debate in the first week of the two-week gathering.
To be clear, as Francis said in his follow up interview, he was intentional in his remarks about gays being people he wanted to welcome to the Church rather than condemn, and that the Church had become self-referential and obsessed with abortion and homosexuality over other issues. He also still said “I am a son of the church” conceding that he still holds the doctrines on sexuality and gender from the male priesthood to prohibiting birth control to same sex marriage within the Church to be decided. These changes are still significant since they indicate a profound pastoral shift, and are definitely viewed with anger by the more conservative Cardinals and priests who are openly defying the Pope.
The pastoral or gradualist approach is starting to be defined:
Signaling the direction they are heading, the bishops called for a more merciful approach toward the faithful who stray from the Catholic ideal, citing the need for “courageous pastoral choices” to reflect the current plurality of relationships outside the traditional family model.
They urged pastors, for instance, to be more welcoming to gays, who have “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” And it called on pastors to treat divorced Catholics who have remarried civilly with respect, “avoiding any language or behavior that might make them feel discriminated against.”
Hopefully recent incidents such as this one soon be a relic of a reactionary past. Along with the firing of gay Catholic employees who were civilly married. And for those that were civilly remarried outside the Church, like my own parents, who have long felt conflicted about their place in the Church. Ma eventually started getting communion again shortly after I was born, viewing my birth as a sign that her second marriage was blessed. My father never did, part of an odd combination of his own religious skepticism matched with following the teaching he was raised in to the letter.
Obviously many of the mainline Protestant churches, with the Presbyterians being the most recent, are decades ahead of Rome when it comes to female ordination, same sex unions, and even gay ordinations. They have also seen schisms, membership declines, and the watering down of teachings most Creedal Christians would actually agree on. Pope Francis seems to be steering a more pragmatic and moderate path than his peers, and this is something we can all be grateful for.
Laurel says
As a non-Catholic, I welcome a change in tone, especially if the American bishops stop their shameful, hideous anti-gay rants and political campaigns. However, the church still categorizes gays at “intrinsically disordered”, so it’s hard for me to understand how the church is going to have their cake and eat it too. “Bubba may be a hell-bent pervert, but he does contribute to the neighborhood by keeping his lawn looking so nice.” That’s essentially what Francis is saying, when you view his new approach in the context of church doctrine.
jconway says
The church is explicitly jettisoning the “intrinsically disordered” language. It’s still the phrasing in the Catechism-but won’t be in pastoral documents and should eliminate a lot of the bad pastoral practices like barring gays from communion, firing gays, etc. that have become a growing problem in the American church. Letting gay children and the children of gay parents fully participate.
We aren’t where the Episcopalians are, but we are ahead of the Boy Scouts and the Mormons and that’s significant progress. I would also add we are already seeing a trickle down effect in terms of whom Francis appoints as bishops. In the Philippines we have gone from the aptly named Cardinal Sin who once said “don’t have sex if you don’t want kids” to Cardinal Taglie who didn’t push hard against birth control liberalization last year and is now one of the key signatories to this new document showing a shift in tone towards gays. In Chicago, we have gone to culture warrior Cardinal George to Archbishop Cupich whose loudest condemnation of politicians during his opening press conference was directed at their failure to pass immigration reform. While George fought ACA, Cupich told his priests to sign people up. He personally opposed legalizing same sex marriage in WA but told his parishioners it was a matter for their conscience and he wouldn’t tell them how to vote. That’s a sea change compared to a few years ago and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The reform of the reform has only just begun.
Laurel says
Francis is saying “you can still stay in the choir, oh, but this is what we think of you and don’t even try to take communiton:
As for Cupich, he was an active participant in the RCC’s effort to prevent marriage equality in Washington state. He even went the extra mile to make a series of targeted anti-gay videos. Cupich may be right on some issues, but he’s proven himself to be a hateful bigot when it comes to gays. He just doesn’t use the same vitriolic terminology as George and others.
jconway says
Neither will the divorced or remarried, that’s my understanding of it. Other Catholic friends who are either LGBT themselves are ecstatic about many of these changes. That said, I am not gay, so I cannot speak to particular personal experiences you and others have experienced. I would argue that Francis in his earlier statements and his homily today where he reminded us that adherance to the letter of the law can sometimes overpower and even prevent adherance to the spirit of the Gospel is a clear sign he is coming from an entirely different understanding of this issue than his two predecessors.
Will he endorse marriage equality? No. Neither did Cupich. But they are also signaling a profound shift in discipline and moral understanding, and the doctrine and dogma will eventually catch up.
As for Tom, I will only say you and I agree on more than we disagree and I’ll wait for you to get your morning coffee before I reply to that statement below.
SomervilleTom says
I recognize the significant steps I see in your commentary about these topics since we first engaged here years ago. Perhaps I, too, have changed over the years (hopefully for the better).
On this topic, I fear we are likely to stay far apart. I offer “pastoral outreach” to you and the many others who defend or embrace this fundamentally failed belief system — were I in your shoes (and I think I have been), I would reject it. I therefore feel no ill-will towards you for doing the same.
I actually was sufficiently caffeinated when I wrote the comment below. I was married to a Roman Catholic, from first-generation Italian and third-generation Irish parents. I held my tongue while a priest from her family’s “liberal” parish explained that we were welcome to take communion in his parish if we liked, so long as “only” silently confessed our respective sins of adultery before each Eucharist. I mouthed nice noises to her large family contingent (her parents were each one of eight, she was one of five) at our Episcopal marriage Eucharist, after they were reluctantly persuaded to attend after their priest (perhaps the same) explained that so long as they didn’t take the cup and wafer, they had not sinned. I held my tongue again during our third pregnancy, when she refused to have an amniocentesis because she would never abort a baby even it had Downs (we had two other normal and healthy children at the time).
I survived the suffering that “Catholic” woman and her family were happy to impose on me when she decided she wanted a divorce (after gaining the three children and brand new 4-bedroom suburban colonial she desired — apparently religious scruples didn’t extend to venal actions). I noted that the oft-professed strictures against divorce mouthed by her family apparently did not extend to one of their own. I don’t doubt that that same “liberal” priest was able to proscribe a sufficient penance to allow her, now divorced, to be welcomed back into the fold.
I have spent twenty years battling against the superstition, bias, and prejudice that family has attempted to instill in three of my children from that marriage. I have held my piece while my thirteen year old (and very gifted) youngest daughter asked if she was “catholic” because she was confused by the term “holy catholic church” that she grew up with in our Episcopal services — this while her mother was forcing her to attend CCD during one of her mother’s frequent attempts to reconcile herself to her family of origin’s faith (her mother seems to have again landed in the Episcopal tradition. My daughter joins me in apostasy/agnosticism).
The human cost and suffering of these toxic beliefs and the biblical passages cited in their support is unimaginable. In my view, it will not and should not be glossed over because one man offers a set of carefully crafted words in an elaborately prepared missive.
The fundamental belief system we are discussing is toxic to women and toxic to rationality. The attachment to these failed and barbaric beliefs forces the entire institution — and, sadly, everyone in it, including the laity — to develop skills in hypocrisy, evasion, delusion, and self-deceit in order to preserve these historical curiosities and anachronisms. Alexander the Great was, after all, also believed to be born of a virgin. Thankfully very few people conduct religious wars today based on that belief.
The bitterness you hear in my response is not due to lack of coffee. It is, instead, frustration born of the experiences of a lifetime.
jconway says
It sounds like you went through a real ordeal of a first marriage, tied in with a hypocritical family picking and choosing what teachings to get tied up over. I would argue that the Church did not produce that bitter relationship, which is unique to our own experience, though it did produce the clericalism and rules above reason mentality that many cradle Catholics and some more tradcon converts engage in.
Supposedly during a sex party they were attending at Peter Lawford’s, Bobby told a mistress he couldn’t have a hamburger on a Friday. Stories like that are boundless. My great uncle Al, no stranger to stepping outside of his marriage (he served at Iwo Jima so I give him a pass) refused cremation at the end, even though he had previously stated it and the Church had already softened its opposition to it. My divorced cousin Anthony living in Lynn (and in sin) with his baby mama (the ‘baby’s’ a few years older than me now) shouting about gays and abortion while not marrying his spouse or going to Mass outside of funerals and Christmas. The list goes on.
Every faith has that. My Methodist fiancees old bishop came out as an agnostic after his tenure concluded (and his pension was fully secure). Adulterers abound among the famous black clergy who made up the Civil Rights movement, including Rev. Jackson (father and son) and Dr. King.
One can take a faith as a guiding post for a life well lived in accordance to a code, the Church, certainly prior to Vatican II and as recently as a decade ago, still felt that certain sexual activities violated that code so much that they prevented the imparting of grace. Now we have the clearest statement in Catholic history affirming that is not the case. A foundation to build upon.
The first church to condemn capitalism, the first church to embrace evolution, first church to back immigration reform (in the 1830s!) is also the last church to fully embrace women and one of the last to embrace gays. Its a contradiction many of us try and live with, since the priests we interact with, the Bible we believe in, and ultimately the God we pray to are far more loving and merciful. And we have a Pope steering the faith back towards its origin as a truly universalist enterprise seeking mercy and dispensing grace rather than political and economic clout with regimented moral structures. I choose to celebrate that, and I would also caution against painting with a broad brush.
SomervilleTom says
This strikes me like David Duke trying to put a more palatable face on the KKK.
The evils of misogyny, exploitation, and masculine self-interest are pervasive and rooted in two millenia of institutional history. The radical feminists in my circle of associates argue that Catholic priests have been abusing young Catholic WOMEN for millennia without complaint — the former Catholics among them make cruel references to Saturday afternoon “Altar duty”. Those radical feminists suggest that it was only when more-valuable young MEN became victims that the scandal was revealed.
As horrific as the clergy sex-abuse scandal was, it still affected only a relatively small minority of Catholic parishioners. The true horrors of this institution have been visited on two millennia of women and their daughters. Dogma that treats women as property and daughters as assets to be sold. An entire institution premised on the virginity of a long-ago adolescent woman, and thereby sentencing two millennia of women throughout the world to a lifetimes of guilt, exploitation, and abuse because of their gender and because of their human enjoyment of the same behaviors that their male counterparts celebrate with either the blessing of or a forgiving wink from the church fathers who hold ALL the power.
How many Catholic men or boys have been denied communion for ANY decision they acted on regarding their own sexuality? How many unmarried Catholic fathers have been punished by the Church for abandoning the child that Church dogma forced the mother to carry and deliver?
The Catholic Church is to women what the KKK is to blacks. No amount of lipstick can change that reality.
Christopher says
The KKK ONLY exists to persecute blacks and spread hatred for them. That is emphatically NOT the raison d’etre of the Catholic Church with regard to women. There are many women throughout the ages which have been celebrated by the Catholic Church and with good reason. Women have a role to play in ministry even if not ordained. You cannot say the same for blacks in the KKK. Whatever the KKK equivalent is for Godwin’s Law, you just triggered it in spades.
jconway says
I’ll turn the other cheek on this one. I will say that the KKK is probably the last place you’ll find a good word spoken on the Catholic Church’s behalf.
Christopher says
n/t
SomervilleTom says
There is no dichotomy between racism and sexism. The KKK is virulently prejudiced against blacks, Catholics, and Jews.
SomervilleTom says
I used hyperbole, perhaps overly so, to make what I assert is still a valid point: Women are VERY MUCH second-class citizens in the eyes of the church.
The predominant role of women in the Catholic Church is procreation. The long-standing view of women as property reflects this. The refusal to deny men communion for abandoning the children they have fathered, even while denying women who have or offer abortions, demonstrates the fundamental gender inequality of the church.
The Catholic Church’s dogma, teaching, and practice towards sex serve to enslave women. TODAY.
The Church’s long-standing view that abortion is a mortal sin EVEN when necessary to save the life of the mother demonstrates the subordinate role of women in the misogynist patriarchy of the Catholic Church.
The role of women in the Catholic Church, beyond making babies, is to support men and be “nurturing”. It doesn’t sound like you’ve spent much time in the deep south. The racists who embrace the KKK most certainly do express analogous views about “good ni****rs.” So long as they remain subservient, step aside on the sidewalk when whites pass, and faithfully perform subservient roles that have been assigned to them (sweep floors, wash cars, shine shoes, etc.), they are well “loved”.
Godwin’s Law is NOT intended to forbid discussion of antisemitism, and its analog should NOT be used to forbid discussion of racism.
I get that some of you are uncomfortable about my explicitly calling out the misogyny of the Catholic Church. The very fact of your own discomfort should, in my view, be a clue that helps reveal the truth of what I am saying.
The Catholic Church suppresses and exploits women. This suppression and exploitation is pervasive in its dogma, its belief system, its liturgy, and its CURRENT practices.
Christopher says
If by some fluke the Holy Spirit moved the College of Cardinals to elect me the next Pope I’d overturn the ordination ban in a heartbeat. I still say the difference in degree is one so vast as to become a difference in substance, and again the whole point of the KKK is to be racist while sexism is not the whole point of the RCC.
jconway says
An NCR reporter penned this quick summary for The New Republic. Considering how openly defiant bishops like Burke are getting over this, with some even mentioning the dreaded ‘h’ word (heresey), this could be a much bigger fight foreshadowing larger changes. Father Jim Martin, a center left Jesuit known as the chaplain to the Colbert Report, has argued its significance will fall somewhere between either becoming Vatican III or at least Vatican 2.5. I agree with Laurel that the proposed changes do fall short of the full validation gay Catholics deserve, and it certainly doesn’t wash away the sins of the Church on a multitude of fronts as Tom pointed out, but its a clear and decisive break with the relatively recent past and a step towards a more inclusive future. The fact that we have a Pope open to this kind of debate, open to admitting he is a flawed human being and a sinner himself, open to admitting the church is flawed and wounded, and open to the gifts gays and others formerly excluded from church life bring to the table is progress, and worth celebrating.
Laurel says
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Francis’s intentions are all well and good, but to make me a “believer” the bishops must demonstrate that they mean what Francis tells them to say about gays having “gifts”. Are they willing to do what it takes to make sure we can use our gifts without discrimination? They could do so very easily by using their political might to finally get a robust Employment Non-Discrimination Act passed. Or better yet, adding “sexual orientation and gender identity and expression” to the list of categories protected against discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Let’s see what, if any, actions follow Francis’s words.
jconway says
Polling shows nearly 75% of American Catholics back ENDA, an even higher percentage than those who back same sex marriage. I know the Pope, and some of his allies in the College of Cardinals like Schonborn, Kasper, Marx, and the liberal Italians-are inching towards accomodating same sex civil unions as an acceptable policy solution to the question of gay cohabitation. The Pope clearly has articulated why that makes sense.
Unfortuantely, the USCCB is a different beast than the Vatican. During the heyday of Vatican II Bishops like Cardinal Mundelein often opposed Reaganomics and Reagan’s foreign policy in stark terms while Pope John Paul II openly viewed Reagan as an anti-communist ally. These days that seems to have flipped, the Pope is progressing rapidly while the USCCB is out of touch. Its website still focuses on its support for Hobby Lobby, opposition to ACA, and sadly opposition to ENDA even with religious exemptions. It is becoming out of touch, as many observers like Michael Sean Winters have stated.
Hopefully this Synod can demonstrate that bishops should feel free to vote with their conscience since the Vatican line is become far more flexible on this issue. I would argue, as with many issues, that the church is not defined by its hierarchy but by the mosaic of its members, priests and nuns on the ground, and the laity who have ministerial roles. They are all ahead of the Church on this, and they have a Pope committed to catching the Cardinals up. Again-are they going to back this law tomorrow? No. But, in a few years time these are not the issues they will be devoting political capital to. And they will be allies on economics, immigration, preventing unjust war, and yes gradually-on ending discrimination for every citizen.
The bishops he appoints today will elect the next Pope down the line, just as we are still living with Reagans Supreme Court, we are living with JPII appointed bishops at th College. Slowly, it will become Francis’ college, and I think we will see the next generation of Bishops start to take hold.
Laurel says
I’ve been discriminated against by the RCC since birth, so don’t expect people like me to turn cartwheels over vague notions of some possible positive movement in some nebulous future. I live here and now. The RCC actively works to hurt me here and now, this very minute of this very day. You will understand if I demand proof of change and some measure of reparations before I go ga-ga over Francis’s efforts. Until that happens, I hope you enjoy your cloud, since there’s no room on it for the “intrinsically disordered” as per order of the RCC.
jconway says
I am not stating that the changes are perfect or fair, just arguing that they are making progress. It’s a clear signal and a step in the right direction. I believe, as Dr. King said that the arc of history bends towards justice. I will never excuse, defend, or paper over injustice-even if its injustice committed by institutions or individuals I respect. Both the Papacy and the Presidency for instance have lengthly rap sheets on a host of issues-and the flaws continue to the present occupiers of those offices.
But I also believe the present and future occupants have the potential to create good and help bend history towards justice. I choose to see the glass half full here, I am also a straight Irish Catholic who left the Church for a time and came back, so I respect that you feel the damage is done and there is still a lot of work to do before you see it the same way I do. I sincerely hope these changes are a floor and not a ceiling.
whoaitsjoe says
Truer words never spoken in the era of instant gratification.
Laurel says
Enquiring minds want to know.
Laurel says
From CNN:
tedf says
I find RCC stuff fascinating, but it’s always been curious to me how much energy non-Catholics like me put into parsing Catholic theology and teaching. My favorite example, from my own community, is the interest in Catholic teaching on Jews. Vast over-simplification: in the bad old days the Church had a very negative theological understanding of the Jews, who had been superseded by the Church; but now the Church is more respectful of the Jews’ religious experience, and people like Cardinal Kasper make a point of saying that the Church regards the Jews’ covenants as still in effect and “salvific for them.” That’s great, but really, why should I care about how Catholic theologians regard me?
I would put the same question here: gays and lesbians may say it’s great that the Church is taking a more enlightened approach to them, and certainly gay and lesbian Catholics have a real stake in the doctrines of the Church. But for non-Catholic gays and lesbians, why isn’t the answer, “that’s great, but it’s none of my business?”
Now, you may say that the Church exercises political influence and so we care about what it does politically, and you’d be right. But it seems to me that folks are really also interested in the theology, so I think my question stands: why?
Laurel says
But I care what they say and do for two reasons:
1. The RCC *does* have enormous political power. *Everyone* should care what they’re cooking up, because it will affect you through their considerable political involvement. The RCC isn’t content to say “none of our business” when it comes to non-Catholics, so say the same about the RCC at your own risk.
2. I care how any institution treats my LGBT brothers and sisters. I give special attention to mega institutions like the RCC that is so big and powerful that it has permanent observer status at the UN. No other religious institution is treated with such deference.
tedf says
I guess, Laurel, you’re a counterexample to my claim that non-Catholics often care about Catholic theology for reasons that are unclear to me.
centralmassdad says
Obviously, the RCC is subject to such scrutiny because it wields such extraordinary political power.
The sheer force of these bishop’s political power is amply demonstrated by the rejection of SSM in those states in which Catholics make up the greatest portion of the population, such as Rhode Island (63%), Massachusetts (44%), New Jersey (39%), California (37%), and New York (36%), as compared with the eager embrace of SSM in those states where the RCC is the least powerful, such as Alabama (6%), Mississippi (7%), West Virginia (8%), and Arkansas, Alaska, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah (each 9%).
tedf says
…but my point is, we care about the politics, not the moral theology, or at least that’s what we should care about.
centralmassdad says
But a lot of the rather significant discussion presently underway is about how the moral theology is put into the personal and political sphere. It certainly appears that the present pontiff wants to get the clergy dis-engaged from the culture wars– and is getting pushback from those most committed to it.
If nothing else, the public nature of the disagreement among bishops helps shatter the silly myth of monolithic Catholicism when it comes to political and cultural issues.
jconway says
With the Church they are often linked. Hence, it’s never been enough in the Bishops eyes for a politician to make the Cuomo statement on abortion (“personally opposed, but won’t impose on others”), and, until recently, on the question of marriage equality which the church actively opposed on the ballot in Maine and California. I once outlined why that opposition made little theologically (since even straight civil marriages aren’t real in the eyes of the church) and we all know it made very little sense logically. But they made it a question of doctrine and purity and stuck to it. Those two issues are the main reason the last Catholic nominated by our party for President lost the Catholic vote to a born again Methodist.
I do think that even if this moral theology is a bit tortured for the lay person, and divisive enough to be walked back as non-definitive, it does signal that the Church’s political priorities will be moving out of the bedroom and into the streets where the poor, the immigrant, and those effected by income inequality the most are suffering. This is a welcome realignment. Francis would never endorse a Cuomo statement, but Evangeli Guadium clearly links abortion as a symptom of income inequality which is clearly identified as the greatest political problem of our age.
jconway says
Catholic theology on the role of the Jews in the death of Christ laid the seed for nearly a millenia of anti-semitic reprisals, pogroms, and policies. Driving the Jews and Muslims out of the Iberian peninsula was one of the main reasons behind the Inquisition. Charles Curran and other scholars have pointed this out. Now it is important to remember that the Inquisition was localized as a Spanish, rather than Roman institution, and some contemporary clerics condemned it, just as Bartholemew Diaz condemend converting native Americans by the sword.
St. John Paul II directly apologized for that theology at the Wailing Wall and named it as one of the seeds for the Holocaust. It is important the understanding changed, and it’s no accident the German clerics were strongest in issuing it. It is also one of the many barriers to readmitting the SSPX sect back into the Church, one of the few actions of Benedict Pope Francis has openly criticized for precisely that reason.
And it matters to non-Catholic LGBTQ. If the Catholics can liberalize, it makes it far more difficult for conservatives in other Christian denominations-particularly the Lutheran and Anglican ones that still look to Rome on these matters-and also efforts to liberalize the teaching within the LDS and evangelical churches. Catholic theology on Jews fortunately is quite progressive these days, more so than most evangelical and even some mainline denominations which would still argue they need a conversion for salvic purposes.
I’m a bit of a lay theology junkie and nerd, but that is a bit of a U Chicago thing where as the joke goes, even the atheists learn Catholic theology at a Baptist school from Jewish professors.
tedf says
…but I guess what I’m saying is, whatever the Catholics’ view of the Jews’ theological status doesn’t, or shouldn’t, have much to do with whether the Church is planning another Spanish Inquisition. Catholics can treat Jews with respect whether or not they think we are going to heaven. Likewise with gays and lesbians. Catholics should be able to treat them with respect even if they regard homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered.” To my mind, that’s just, well, liberalism—freedom of religious belief in the private sphere coupled with equal treatment for all in the political sphere.
JimC says
Technically the Vatican is its own country, with ambassadors and such (and, some say, spies). So that’s why probably why the church has that status.
jconway says
A lotta of power that has given the Palestinian Authority and UNICEF.
If the Vatican couldn’t even discern that the butler did it I wouldn’t put too much trust in it’s spy network either. And boy that Senator Kennedy, if liberals like us are dumb enough to put him in the White House you can forget about the Constitution, he’ll have the tunnel to Rome installed under the Oval Office!
petr says
… as the theology represents 2000 years of thinking. Theology used to be called “The Queen Of the Sciences” for it’s spot in the university roster and was long a cornerstone in the creation and the re-creation of the world, up until the world we live in now. (not just for Catholics) Perhaps theology specific to the Catholic Church is indeed wrong thinking or it’s even ‘intrinsically disordered’ thinking, but it is an investment of thought and effort over a very long stretch of time that isn’t going to be discarded like yesterdays hamburger wrapper.
This is not a defense of the Catholic Church but a challenge to your assumption that you don’t need to know anything about the theology to attack the results of it or to bemoan the amount of time it takes to change it.
The whole gay rights struggle in the US has, in recent years, gone from 0 to dizzying with a dispatch not seen in other struggles. While this is overall a good thing the resulting impatience with further wholesale upheaval of longstanding societal norms strikes me as less productive than it might, at first, appear. We’ve gone from a world with rigid, intolerant, boundaries to one with very little rules whatsoever. I do not assert that this is a bad thing. I do assert that it takes some getting used to and some time to work out a new set of (hopefully more fair) cultural negotiations and boundaries. The Catholic Church is just one institution involving itself in this process.
This is, pointedly, not true. In fact, the opposite is true, as a great many — perhaps even a majority– of the states involved in the UN do not observe a separation of church and state. Maybe they should. But they do not. China and Russia are ‘officially’ atheist, but that’s neither here nor there as atheists (as seen by Soviet and Sino politics) can be as doctrinaire and hidebound with their own ‘religiosity’ as the Vatican…
jconway says
There has long been a Pauline and Petrine tension in the entire Christian church, but especially in the Catholic Church. That tension is not between liberal and conservative camps, but between those that emphasize the institutional Church and its authority and those that emphasize the people and their authority. Within the Episcopalian church for example, the Petrine faction is often theologically liberal and enforces edicts on conservative parish bodies (eg. admitting women and gay ministers and desegregating the pews for example).
I think we have a Pauline pope, hoping to get the Church back in touch with the sentiments of its people, many of whom have experienced relationships with gay and lesbian family members, many of them in solid and stable long term partnerships, that show the ‘intrinsically disordered’ teaching is out of date and in need of revision. I think we will see that, and its important to understand the context of the slow pace while embracing the change.
SomervilleTom says
My understanding, during my years of more serious theological study, was that the more fundamental rift was between the transcendent and immanent cosmologies — articulated in the 20th century by Paul Tillich and Karl Barth. I also note, mostly facetiously, that from a biblical perspective it is only Peter whom Jesus repeatedly loses patience with (I say that as a reasonably biased Pauline theologian if I am anything).
Episcopal Bishop Steven Charlestown, former Dean of Episcopal Divinity School, preached compellingly that the core conflict in the 21st century is between fundamentalist literalism and metaphorical spiritualism — in all three Abrahamic traditions. He preached that in a sermon prior to 9/11, and my sense has always been that that sermon presaged much of the history that has unfolded since then.
I’d like to quibble a bit with your summary of the Petrine faction within the Episcopal church. I was an active Episcopalian during the fractious period when the battle for women’s ordination was won. I’m reasonably confident that NO edict was ever imposed on any parish, conservative or liberal. In fact, the authority structure of the Episcopal church makes this difficult or impossible.
In the Episcopal church, power is DILUTED as the hierarchy is climbed. The parish priest serves at the pleasure of the vestry. An Episcopal bishop has NO authority over parishes or priests, beyond persuasion. The Archbishop of Canterbury has NO authority whatsoever over the various elements of the Anglican communion.
The extended conflict over the revision of the 1928 prayer book — primarily to moderate the pervasively masculine language of the earlier standard — took a decade to resolve precisely because of the inverted power structure. No parish was ever forced to adopt even this gentle revision — the 1928 prayer book remains in use in conservative Episcopal parishes throughout the country today.
In fact, the dynamics of women’s ordination were that liberal parishes led the way and ordained women because they wanted to. It was conservative parishes and their clergy who attempted to block that process. The first woman Bishop was ordained here in Massachusetts in 1988 — I was there.
The ordination of Gene Robinson was delayed years longer than most of the laity wanted, and the entire issue of gay and lesbian ordination was fought tooth-and-nail by conservative factions.
At no time was any female, gay, or lesbian priest or bishop EVER ordained by edict or imposed on any parish or body. In the Episcopal church, the parish (through its vestry) calls its rector (I’m leaving aside the question of struggling former parishes who are kept alive by supply priests assigned by the diocese).
In my view, the bottom-up versus top-down authority and power structure is a fundamental distinction between the Episcopal and the Roman Catholic tradition. I suggest that this distinction has everything to do with why the latter has been so glacially slow to embrace ANY of the changes demanded by modern life.
jconway says
I absolutely disagree with the main reasons why ACNA left, and it’s Archbishop actually has papal power within his denomination, rather than the more symbolic power that the Presiding Bishop in the TEC has. That said, I wish they had done more to make that divorce amicable. They are also closing parishes, have issues paying into their pension fund, yet she refused to settle and spent nearly $70 million fighting to keep properties that frankly wouldn’t be viable as TEC parishes. And it seems they aren’t too concerned about growing parishes or increasing membership.
For a lot of reasons I would argue that the TEC, particularly its more Anglo-Catholic variant, would hold a lot of attraction to millenials. Catholics like me and Methodists like my fiancee were raised on guitar masses and Christian rock in worship, and we absolutely prefer classic hymns, ancient chants, and the smells and bells of a traditional worship experience. Traditional worship matched with good preaching around a strong social ethos and modern approaches to sexuality should make it a great church for the ‘nones’ and ‘seekers’ out there who are spiritual but have had issues with organized religion in the past. They are trying with ashes on the go and other initiatives, and the one we attended when we lived in Chicago was very vibrant and had a good mix of ages. I wish it well and will likely find myself in and out of its doors.
centralmassdad says
that I am a Catholic with a chronic case of Episcopalian envy.
But tom’s example of a success of the bottom-up authority structure produced, in addition to the costs that you have outlined, what amounts to a schism. Perhaps the RCC is headed that way, too, but I rather hope not.
jconway says
There are after all traditionalist Catholics opposed to Vatican II. There was the Society of Pope Pius X (the papal infallibility Pope), which got excommunicated when they started ordaining their own bishops , though was controversially re-admitted before Benedict resigned. Then there are sedevacantists like Hutton Gibson (father of Mel) who believe Freemasons and Jews infiltrated the Council and the church has been without a pope since 1959. And closer to home, a few Feenyians are still hanging out in New Hampshire. Cardinal Cushing excommunicated them in the 50s.
jconway says
If Protestants are to be considered the church has survived thousands of schisms :p
SomervilleTom says
The Church of England was born out of a schism with the RCC. I view that as very positive outcome. Perhaps it’s time for an American Catholic Church that ordains women and married people, and encourages the use of contraception as its primary tactic to avoid abortions. Oh, but we have that already (cf the Episcopal Church).
The conservatives who held the Episcopal church hostage for a decade should have, in my opinion, been shown the door early on. The effort to avoid the inevitable only enabled and empowered the very worst elements of the Episcopal church.
The fact that the ACNA organized itself as it apparently did (I don’t know) is, in my view, irrelevant to the Episcopal church. The properties that were contested by the Episcopal church were done so out of deference, generally, to the the clearly-stated terms of the endowments and similar instruments that funded their original creation.
In the Boston area, I recommend All Saints, on Beacon Street in Brookline between Washington Square and Cleveland Circle (the Dean Road stop on the C line). Very liberal, a full range of smells and bells, marvelous music, and growing.
jconway says
Like I said, I’ve always found most Episcopal parishes to be quite welcoming and to have a good mix of preaching, worship, and outreach. The same is true for most RC churches I’ve been to as well. I’ll flow from one to the other comfortably. I’ve been pointed towards All Saints in Belmont and All Saints in Ashmont before, a great name for a parish. Christ Church in Cambridge is one of my favorite in the area, and everyone at Atonement in Chicago spoke of Church of the Advent near Beacon Hill with hushed tones of reverence.
centralmassdad says
and agree with your assessment. I have on occasion referred to myself as a Catholic with Episcopalian envy, and have played with the notion of an American Catholic Church. I would not make a move to the Episcopal Church, first because of historical family and ethnic reasons, and second because– doctrines of sexual morality aside, since I share my disagreement with the clerical hierarchy with most American Catholics– I find that the Catholic Church more closely matches my moral values.
In any event, I cannot think of schism as anything other than a calamity, though I understand that your views differ.
SomervilleTom says
It seems to me that one of our great strengths as a nation, state, and community is our eagerness to celebrate the diversity — especially regarding religious beliefs — of our views.
centralmassdad says
Celebrate diversity sounds like a slogan for the student union. I think of it as our nation’s greatest strength is the ability to create the conditions where very different people with very different views can treat each other with civility. When that happens, good things happen. Of late, I despair that even our vaunted representative democratic institutions can accomplish this.
Catholic Church teachings about everything do not exist just because a Pope said so. Rather, they come in very significant measure from reason– that is, people using our brains to learn about ourselves, others, and the world around us, and gain authority as they come to be acknowledged and accepted by a consensus of the Church– that is, of the faithful. That process takes an absurdly long time, which is why things like the acknowledgment of things like “Galileo was right” take an embarrassingly long time. Yeah, it is frustrating when someone doesn’t yield to the supreme power of my intellect, but the very point is to practice patience and have the humility to recognize that I might be wrong, even when I know, dammit, I know!, that I am 100% right.
That is why the tradition is so thoroughly legalistic, at its core, and, frankly, why Biblical Fundamentalism is thoroughly alien to the Catholic tradition.
Bishops at the synod are not there to proclaim some doctrine or teaching, but rather to present the perspective of the faithful, as best they can. Again, this was JPII’s great failure– he tried to arrange these things so that one and only one view was presented, views of the faithful notwithstanding, thus distorting the actual views of the Church to its very great cost. That process- the discussion–is precisely what is happening now in Rome, and why the Vatican initiated the survey that many of we folks in the pews took last year.
Catholic teachings on sexual morality stem from the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is in my view and the view of a great many other Catholics, has been revealed by knowledge and experience to be quite un-reasonable. The teachings are not immutable; they are subject to reason. The view that Aquinas’ philosophy is unreasonable in this respect is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is most certainly not universally shared among the faithful–particularly so outside the West. So the bishops will (we hope) have meetings, discussions, and arguments, and parse wording of this or that statement from this or that synod. And then, after people have ruminated, they do it again, and then again. If the participants think of themselves collegially, rather than as belligerents in a culture war, then eventually reason–real reason–wins out.
That whole process– the essence of Catholicism– doesn’t happen if the first instinct is to issue a righteous denunciation, and then take my ball and go home. The Great Schism and the Reformation, were failures of that process, caused by vanity and intransigence of the then-Catholic bureaucracy and of their opponents. Both sides of both schisms, in my view, would have profited over the long term by embracing the process with a little more humility rather than retreating into intransigence.
One of the structural failures–heck THE structural failure– of the JPII papacy was to suppress the deliberative process of the Church in favor of rank authoritarianism. The supression of the exercise of reason makes this present synod far more vituperative than it might have been; and the chasm that grew between the clergy and the Church has been damaging in all kinds of ways. JPII suppressed, but not eliminate– differing viewpoints obviously exist and have long existed within the Church, even among the senior clerical hierarchy, as is now obvious, and has been obvious for many years in a great number of parishes for those who cared to look.
The tradition of growth through disagreement, discussion, and endless meetings and legalistic debate extending over extremely long periods of time is old and vibrant, in areas other than the specific focus of this particular synod. It is not my hope that Pope Francis will somehow change teachings to something more to my liking, but rather that he has the longevity and the skill to create the environment in which the Church– that is, the people– can arrive at the Truth in those matters on its own.
This probably means that you will get to have your “aha!, see, no meaningful change!” moment soon– but the change as an end is not the point of the exercise. The process itself is the point of the exercise. That is deeply unsatisfying to those with a particular and goal-oriented agenda, but it is not so to me.
The church hierarchy is not the Church, any more than the the President and Congress are not America. It is a bureaucracy, and as all others, universally fails to meet its own ideals, much as our government has not often lived up to the ideals of our own Declaration of Independence. Are there better ways to organize that bureaucracy? Probably, but in the religious sphere, unlike the political sphere, I am unconvinced that the benefits outweigh the costs. The more democratic hierarchy certainly restrains authoritarianism of the type exercised by JPII, and to which you object, but doesn’t seem to be any better at fostering the long process that is the real goal, in my view. The only things that can foster that are patience, respect, and humility– virtues that are rare among all people, clergy and otherwise.
Dividing the faithful into mutually hostile camps doesn’t really achieve much, in my view, even if I wind up in one that I know– I KNOW, is 100% right about everything.
I do not begrudge your or laurel’s hostility to the Church’s teachings as presently constituted; I agree with nearly all of them. Nor do I begrudge the intensity of your political opposition to the attempts by various clergy to deprive you of what are your rights. I do begrudge the insistence of some to substitute the views of JPII or some cardinal as the view of the entire Church, when that is (obviously, in North America) not the case.
Sometimes it seems that the only people who bought wholly into JPII’s expansive assertions of authority are (1) the prelates who owe their appointment to him; and (2) non-Catholic political opponents of JPII and those prelates.
jconway says
If I ever need to tell people why I choose to return to the Church, it is the many ideas you reference in your post that turn me towards there. Its greatest strength and greatest weakness is its immovability. Its a strength when things like liturgy are preserved and not watered down in vain attempts to be ‘relevant’ to modern culture, its a strength when the essentials of the Creed one triune God, the resurrection, the virgin birth, the communion of saints, the sacraments-are taken seriously and are not modified. Its a strength one church can stretch to so many lands in so many cultures while maintaining its distinct set of practices without significant modification, and that so many disagreeing views can be found under one roof. And that class doesn’t matter. We never rented pews, and working stiff and corporate CEO have to go through the same rites and procedures and pledge loyalty to the same bishop as everyone else. My fiancee’s dad (a Filipino pastor who was a convert to Protestantism) biggest beef with protestantism is congregational governance and the tendency of vestry boards to be dominated by rich white men with certain viewpoints and too much power. There is a reason de Toqueville praised the church in the 1820s as the most American of the churches and predicted we would be the majority faith-because we welcomed immigrants, had multiracial and multiethnic congregations and priests long before other faiths (first President of Georgetown was a black priest) .
That immovability has meant it has taken too long to catch up with science when our philosophical reason is challenged by it. The modern psychiatry that shows homosexuality is an inherited trait rather than a choice, that birth control does not destroy human life, and that women are capable of being priests. But this Synod has shown the church can handle debate and mature in its own way.
Considering the AMA also thought homosexuality was disordered until 1980, and its a more fast moving organization, I view these changes with a half glass full attitude and a grain of salt rather than a truckload.
SomervilleTom says
I do not advocate “[issuing] a righteous denunciation, and then [taking] my ball and [going] home”. When many of these articles of faith, tradition, and dogma were first being articulated and formalized, theology was “the queen of the sciences”.
A schism that provides perhaps a more constructive example than the fracture that spawned the Church of England is the split that sent science and theology on their now-separate paths.
The issue I have with the institutional dogma of the RCC (and, to a lesser extent, ALL Abrahamic theology) is the institution’s stubborn refusal to admit its own earlier errors, correct them, and move on.
Scientists do not now waste time attempting to reconcile quantum mechanics with Aristotle. Science has long since learned how to revere and acknowledge the contributions of its pioneers even while discarding those contributions as their limitations and failures became obvious.
Until the time of Einstein, ALL of physics asserted, as a matter of dogma, that waves REQUIRE a vacuum to propagate. This dogma resulted in increasingly contorted “explanations” such as the “Ether” as physicists struggled to reconcile that dogma with the increasingly sophisticated observations of the 19th century. One of the dazzling insights offered by Albert Einstein was an explanation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. That “failure” demonstrated that the prevailing dogma was incorrect. There was no “Ether”. Fortunately (at least in my view), the world of science embraced and celebrated Einstein’s astonishing insight.
I submit that we are surrounded by a compellingly large body of evidence that the dogma of the institutional RCC is simply incorrect. There was nothing rash, precipitous, or heretical about Einstein’s singular destruction of entire volumes of 19th century physics.
I suggest that our world will be a better place when the institutional RCC belatedly finds an analogous process for letting go of its failed dogma.
centralmassdad says
But all that means is that you want the Church to yield, immediately or at least rapidly, to the superior force of your intellect, or to the intellect of those whom you have found to be convincing to the point of absolute certainty. Even if the Pope were the absolute monarch people sometimes fancy him to be, what would you have him do? “Hey everyone, news flash: I’ve decided that somervilletom is right, so change of plan here.”
There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. Outside of Europe and North America, the vast (but perhaps shrinking) majority rather vehemently disagrees. Do you suppose that they will all just say “umm, ok?”
In any event, the whole point of natural law– and its importance in Catholic thought– is to incorporate science, a product of reason– into theological and moral thinking, in contrast to, say, Biblical Fundamentalism. There aren’t really any Catholic Young Earth Creationists, and for the most part Catholics have no particular issue with Darwin or his theories. At least not now, after arguing about it for a few decades.
But that doesn’t mean that theology or morality can be reduced to the mathematics of modern science– they are not “science” in the modern sense, and there isn’t really a “scientific” process to challenge any particular line of thought. The process is slow, because that is just the way people are, especially 1.2 billion of them on 6 continents.
jconway says
I would argue the synod is the analogous process for easing in to a more compassionate approach to sexual morality-one realistically informed by the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful). This is why it was so critical that Francis invited laity, some with voting privileges, to contribute to the Synod. The speech by the Australian couple with a gay nephew seemed to have moved a lot of people. And Cardinal Marx (a wonderful name!) is now openly saying the doctrine and dogma on divorce and gay relations can change.
As for science and theology, the church did a good job with evolution and other issues, and is not reflexively anti-science like the fundamentalists are. We’ve held that Genesis is allegorical since the time of Augustine, that the Bible is the inspired word of God since around Aquinas, and that reason and scripture should inform one another. In many ways the threefold Anglican tent-pole (tradition, reason, and scripture) is highly analogous to the Catholic side. We just have been elevating tradition and Scripture over reason when it comes to gay rights unfortunately.
I wouldn’t want to go as far as Bishop Spong though-who in trying to reconcile Christianity with science basically rejects most of the tenants of the creed. At that point, call yourself a Unitarian and read the Jefferson bible. But he definitely proves the old adage that Episcopalians are Unitarians who dress up as Catholics on Sunday mornings.
Christopher says
…there is the running joke that the initials of my denomination stand for “Unitarians Considering Christ”, which for some anyway seems very true!
centralmassdad says
I think I have less argument with you than I was prepared to have.
I count it as a perhaps not so small concession by you that you referred to the “institutional” Church rather than “the Roman Catholic Church.”
To the extent that your criticism is of the bishops, and particularly of the USCCB, I share your view. Indeed, as written above, I cannot really disagree at all.
Over time on this website you have shared enough of your experience for me to have at least a basic understanding of why your feelings on this matter are so intense– far more than I did when we first argued about this topic several years ago. At that time I did not have a particularly charitable view of where you were coming from, and it was probably a mistake to form that view before having even the limited knowledge one can glean through anonymous postings on a message board over the course of time.
I don’t share that intensity, though I have never had any kind of similar experience. Would I feel differently if I had? I do not know.
Christopher says
…I find it highly amusing when Church of England prelates start wringing their hands over the possibility of a divorced monarch, since the next one will be a divorced monarch married to someone who is herself a divorcee. I want to ask them, “You do realize your Church wouldn’t exist if a King hadn’t wanted his divorce so badly, right?”
Laurel says
I never said that I don’t need to know anything about Catholic theology. I’m a lifelong “defensive” learner. But that doesn’t mean I particularly care about the form it all takes. At least, not when it’s not hurting me and mine.
centralmassdad says
I think this is exactly right.
A few things that are useful to bear in mind. One, the document released over the weekend was a draft, and will be walked back, and indeed was probably released in order to provoke the reaction it has. That is because the point of the exercise in Rome is not to change any particular doctrine about anything, but to simply have a discussion in which people disagree. And a vigorous discussion is what is indeed happening. That, alone, is a significant change in the way that the hierarchy of prelates operates. Its long lack is a significant reason that views expressed by the clerical hierarchy and the views expressed by the Church (i.e., the people) have diverged so widely over the last 40 years. But the overall point is for them to have very pointed discussions without having either side stomp out of the room.
In short, this is a pretty big development for Catholics, but anyone expecting the Church hierarchy to suddenly become a progressive force in the culture wars will be disappointed. Most of the culture war belligerents on the progressive side will view this all as small beer, and though I don’t think they are right about that, I also don’t think they are all wrong.
jconway says
For your comment. This is the TLDR version of what I am trying to say:
I don’t expect that, and hopefully haven’t implied that I do. I am hopeful this is a signal that it will cease to be a force in the culture wars, since it recognizes the fight’s worth waging and where it still has capital and credibility are on economic and broader social justice issues (like immigration reform). I think it is moving to a place of neutrality on LGBTQ issues, welcoming of individuals and families, but not marching in a pride parade or marrying gays anytime soon. But that is a healthier place to be than where it was, and probably the best place it can realistically get to in the amount of time Francis will be Pope for. In his America interview he said his job was to perform triage at the field hospital on the church, his papacy on this front and hopefully many others, will stop the bleeding and bind the wounds. It will take a lot longer for the wounds to heal, so I don’t expect and certainly am not asking for Laurel or anyone else whose been damaged by the church in the past to suddenly embrace it with open arms. I am saying it looks like its trying to resolve to sin no more.
Christopher says
…it was specifically the English translation that was walked back a bit, though I’ve seen both and even then I think the distinctions are subtle. The Italian version was not modified and remains the official one. (What happened to Latin being the Vatican’s official language?)
centralmassdad says
I have seen the same but lack the language skills to judge.
The result has been an excellent example of the value of retaining the Latin as reference for all.
As a practical matter, they do not deliberate in Latin and have not for many centuries, documents are translated into Latin once complete. Things may just be moving to fast for the Latinists to keep up.
Christopher says
…that ANY step in the right direction should be celebrated. The Church sees itself as eternal and as such is not in the hurry that many others are to change things. It was only Pope John Paul II after all who finally said the Church was wrong to place Galileo under house arrest for teaching a heliocentric solar system, a gap of almost 400 years. The RCC simply will not turn on a dime. On this matter in particular taking a more enlightened view DOES mean getting themselves to a place where they are OK with fudging Biblical teaching.
kirth says
Any step should be celebrated, because the RCC is so notoriously slow to even acknowledge its wrongdoing? I’m afraid this is not going to persuade “pessimists” that the Church ain’t so bad.
jconway says
I think Christopher, and I guess I’ll add my argument, is that the Church is typically a slow moving behemoth unaccustomed to embracing change or admitting mistakes until extensive, in many cases, centuries of deliberation. One exception was Vatican II, where in a span of a decade, the Church modernized a 500 year old Mass, and almost 1,500 years of church teaching on a host of subjects. Another exception is the shift in tone in less than two years of this papacy. Compare the open debate, the radical pronouncements, and the sense of urgency for change exhibited here to the dull and stale pronouncements at the last similar Synod (which made zero headlines since it changed nothing) where the bishops rubber stamped John Paul II without a debate. Endorsing a host of reactionary principles that are being jettisoned here.
We are saying, considering the typical glacial pace of change, the statements of Benedict who stated he wanted a smaller purer church and one that was a fortress against modernity and this Pope who is ushering in modernity in attitude and practice if not entirely yet in substance and theology. Considering Ellen lost her job for being a lesbian in my lifetime, I would never have thought, having endured a childhood of antiquated sounding homilies under Pope John Paul II, that I would ever hear a Pope or even a group of bishops endorse a statement like this.
jconway says
At this point Pope Francis has ‘evolved’ to the same position held by the President, Vice President, and our likely next nominee as recently as 2010. We may not have caught up with the Democratic Party, but the Church is now ahead of the Republicans and that’s a darn good start if you ask me.
kirth says
That’s such a low bar, it’s practically subterranean.
jconway says
I know I did in spite of disagreeing with his professed stance, similarly, I disagree with this Pope on social questions but am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is on more advanced ground than all of his predecessors for the past two milennia and moving the church around to his views. I didn’t condemn Rob Portman, even if his evolution was self-serving, precisely since there are other public officials with gay relatives that still choose bigotry over love for political reasons. Similarly, this evolution is glacial compared to American society and other churches, but will have a profound effect on the global church, and directly and positively impact the lives of thousands of gay Catholics. It goes beyond firing, baptizing adopted children, and goes to the heart of taking a clear stance against violence and discrimination and using the church as a justification for it.
Marriage equality is the bar by which the West is blessed to evaluate gay rights, but its truly an existential question for thousands of gays across the world. This shift, if done the right way, and if enforced universally, big ifs I concede, will make a drastic difference in that existential question. I don’t see why we can’t applaud progress while at the same time urging on more. This move is the end of the beggining, not the beggining of the end.
Laurel says
Obama in 2010 never:
* Said that gays are intrinsically disordered.
* Claimed that there was any such thing as “just discrimination” against gays
* Opposed protecting gays against employment discrimination
* Opposed respecting the self-determination of anyone to declare and express their gender
And the Church is nowhere near being ahead of the Republicans, who at least do have a few among their ranks both high and low who are willing to stand up and vote for equality. Where are the bishops speaking out for equality? Good luck naming even one who isn’t retired.
mike_cote says
They have no concept of progress.
jconway says
Archbishop Bruni Forte said that the civil rights of persons in same sex unions must be protected and acknowledged by the church as well as the state. He was one of the three authors of the document released Monday:
Those are powerful words coming from an active member of the hierarchy. Endorsed by Cardinal Erdo and Taglie-both prominently papabile at the last conclave and on the G8 group of Cardinals Francis listens to.
In sharp contrast to the GOP which still embraces reparative therapy in some cases:
http://www.newsweek.com/texas-republican-party-adopts-discredited-reparative-therapy-gays-254168
There are Republicans of good will on this issue, there are also active Catholic bishops including the bishop of Rome. I for one am going to withhold judgment and an excited to see where this goes. I for one root for people embracing gay rights, I get the need for skepticism, but it shouldn’t be defeatist or dismissive.
Laurel says
…and he respects our “same-sex unions”, which apparently means relationships, not civil marriages. And some others signed onto the working paper with him, so he’s not alone in these thoughts. But you have not provided even one name of a member of the hierarchy who is standing up for EQUALITY. Saying that gays deserve to be treated nicely is not the same as taking a stand for equality, and no member of the RCC hierarchy that I’m aware of has done that.
There was one priest, Father Geoff Farrow, who spoke out in favor of same-sex marriage when Prop 8 was on the CA ballot in 2008. He was quickly expelled from the church. As far as I know, he’s alone in taking a public stand for equality.
So, going back to what started this sub-thread, it’s ludicrous to compare Obama 2010 to the RCC. The RCC is 100% opposed to LGBT equality. You really need to admit that to remain credible.
jconway says
Prior to 2012, he too was 100% opposed to equality by your definition since he opposed gay marriage. You are defining support for equality as an all or nothing proposition, either you’re for gay marriage or you hate gays. That has never been the attitude adopted by the movement precisely since there is a gradient of acceptance and a gradual evolution. Of course everyone should support gay marriage, but there is a distinction between Westboro church and Pope Francis. Particularly when one is making a sincere effort to change at the fastest possible pace while the other is slinking further and further into extremism and irrelevance.
There were plenty of active priests who signed onto civil marriage equality in MA during the last debate, including some BC professors. Father Pfleger in Chicago signed the same IL petition that my Methodist minister in laws and my fiancées Baptist boss also signed. So did plenty of UND theologians. Father Martin endorses civil unions and has repeatedly said the Church shouldn’t stop civil equality.
So that’s at least four or five priests who weren’t expelled. Father Vaughn who worked with my fiancée at the Hyde Park baptist church as the music director blessed same sex couples all the time.
I might ass the bishop I quoted is clearly rejecting the notion that these couples are intrinsically disordered and is instead focused on the positive aspects their relationship has. Instead of saying they are a threat to civilization he is saying their union honors it, and the church has a responsibility towards it. It falls short of full equality-so did Obama and the Democratic Party prior to 2012. The church, the people and priests who make it up-has long been favorable towards gays-but now the hierarchy is catching up. I welcome them.
Laurel says
Do you see the bullet points I posted above? Do you see marriage in any of them? Marriage is important, but the LGBT rights movement is much, much bigger than marriage. You are the one who keeps mentioning marriage!
When Obama came into office, he was opposed to same-sex marriage but almost immediately began making other pro-LGBT equality policy changes and using the bully pulpit. Look at the graphic here to understand all the ways that Obama was superior to the RCC from Day 1 in office. The RCC has NEVER supported any LGBT equality initiatives. This is reality. No misrepresenting my words and views will change it.
jconway says
Fair enough, I missed those bullet points, I was replying to your other statement after that which said no one in the hierarchy backed equality and from that I took it to mean that you were conflating support for gay rights with support for full marriage equality, to which Obama and Benedict both would have agreed circa 2010 that ‘marriage is one man, one woman’. That was the standard by which I thought you were judging Obama. Certainly on the areas you addressed he was ahead of the church then, though the Democratic Party circa 1996 when it signed DOMA was certainly not. My point is not to compare and contrast, simply to demonstrate that this rapid evolution has taken our party to places activists could not have imagined two decades ago when DOMA was signed, our wider society has embraced it in a way it did not two decades ago when Elled got fired, and hopefully with these changes the RCC will catch up to society. I do not condemn Idaho for being the most recent state, I welcome it as a fellow community that embraces equality. I do not condemn Rob Portman, even if it took embracing his son to convert him, since conservatives like Alan Keyes and Newt Gringrich still abandon gay children or siblings in 2014.
Members of the hierarchy are openly backing civil unions. This was unheard of under the last two popes. Pope Francis is even asking Cardinals to consider having a same sex blessing within the church, and that is not some guitar playing Jesuit but Cardinal Dolan discussing it (he still doesn’t like it). When German, Italian and French cardinals are saying this, they are basically backing civil marriage as it’s understood in those states. That is a massive leap from a few years ago. My point is, the Church is ahead of the official Republican Party circa 2014, its ahead of the Democratic party circa 1996 when it signed DOMA, while yes being significantly behind most other Christian denominations and from where it ought to be.
I’ve never argued otherwise, I am saying the Synod document, which its authors have stood by and the Vatican has now retracted the retraction, is going to make waves and has the potential to revolutionize how the church understands homosexuality and treats homosexual members of its flock which will have ramifications on a host of other areas outside of the church’s purview simply because of its size and influence. I tend to see this as half full, you tend to see this as half empty, but its a development that was unthinkable a decade ago when the cup was entirely empty.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree about the significance of the Synod, but the march of equality started in Massachusetts has rippled across 29 other states. Our own candidate for goveror in 2002 ran away from it, but now no President, I honestly think in either party, will ever get elected if they oppose marriage equality. Certainly no Democrat would get nominated without embracing it. And yes its in the catechism, but the one Cardinal insisting on calling it instrinsically disordered is becoming increasingly marginalized within his own bretheren-let alone the wider church. It is the reactionaries that are now the dissenters in Francis’ church.
jconway says
From the annulment court to chaplain of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (the worlds smallest state according to some!) for his insistence that “intrinsically disordered” stay and that there be no changes to the exclusionary rules.